Court Opinion

ID: 9896617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 21:05:14.639298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:10.776442
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/13/23
                              CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 CITY OF MARINA et al.,                                    H049575
                                                          (Monterey County
            Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, Cross-           Super. Ct. No. 19CV005270)
            complainants and Appellants,

            v.

 COUNTY OF MONTEREY et al.,

            Defendants, Cross-complainants, Cross-
            defendants and Respondents;

 SALINAS VALLEY BASIN
 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
 AGENCY et al.,

            Real Parties in Interest and Respondents;

 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
 COMPANY,

            Intervenor and Real Party in Interest.

                                      I. INTRODUCTION
        This appeal arises from a dispute regarding which local groundwater sustainability
agency is authorized to manage the groundwater in a portion of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer
Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin known as the CEMEX area under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA; Wat. Code, § 10720 et seq.). 1

        1
            All further statutory references are to the Water Code unless otherwise indicated.
       In the proceedings below, appellants City of Marina, Marina Groundwater
Sustainability Agency, and Marina City Council (collectively, City) filed a petition for
a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief, and also a cross-petition and
cross-complaint, which all challenged the groundwater sustainability plan of respondent
Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency) as adopted by respondent County of Monterey (County) and
posted by respondent Department of Water Resources (Department) as the operative
groundwater sustainability plan for most of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, including
the CEMEX area.
       County filed a cross-petition for writ of mandate and cross-complaint for
declaratory relief requesting, among other things, a declaration that the formation of
City’s groundwater sustainability agency was void. The trial court denied County’s
request but granted County’s cross-petition and cross-complaint in part.
       We conclude, pursuant to the provisions of SGMA, section 10720 et seq., that the
trial court did not err in denying City’s petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for
declaratory relief and cross-petition and granting County’s cross-petition and cross-
complaint for declaratory relief in part. We will therefore affirm the judgment.
 II. OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
       SGMA (section 10720 et seq.) was enacted in 2014 and became effective on
January 1, 2015. (Stats. 2014, ch. 346, § 2; Center for Biological Diversity v. County of
San Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 326, 335, fn. 3.) In enacting SGMA, the
Legislature intended to implement the following policy, as stated in section 113: “It is
the policy of the state that groundwater resources be managed sustainably for long-term
reliability and multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits for current and
future beneficial uses. Sustainable groundwater management is best achieved locally
through the development, implementation, and updating of plans and programs based on
the best available science.”

                                             2
       The Legislature also expressed its intent in enacting SGMA in section 10720.1,
which states in part that SGMA was enacted for the following purposes: “To provide for
the sustainable management of groundwater basins. [¶] To enhance local management
of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater and Section 2 of
Article X of the California Constitution.[2] It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve
the security of water rights in the state to the greatest extent possible consistent with the
sustainable management of groundwater. [¶] . . . [¶] To manage groundwater basins
through the actions of local governmental agencies to the greatest extent feasible, while
minimizing state intervention to only when necessary to ensure that local agencies
manage groundwater in a sustainable manner. [¶] To provide a more efficient and cost-
effective groundwater adjudication process that protects water rights, ensures due
process, prevents unnecessary delay, and furthers the objectives of this part.” (§ 10720.1,
subds. (a), (b), (h) & (i).)
       SGMA provides the procedure for local governmental agencies to become the
managers of groundwater basins as groundwater sustainability agencies. Under SGMA,
local agencies overlying a groundwater basin may combine to form a groundwater
sustainability agency by using a joint powers agreement or a legal agreement such as a
memorandum of agreement. (§§ 10723, 10723.6, subd. (a).)
       Once a local agency or combination of agencies decides to become or form a
groundwater sustainability agency and undertake groundwater management, the
Department must be notified of the decision within 30 days. (§ 10723.8, subd. (a).) The
Department must then post a completed notice on its website within 15 days. (§ 10723.8,

       2
         “It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the
general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to
the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such
waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the
interest of the people and for the public welfare.” (Cal. Const., art. X, § 2.)

                                              3
subd. (b).) Section 10723.8 also provides a time frame for the decision to form a
groundwater sustainability agency to become effective, as follows: “The decision to
become a groundwater sustainability agency shall take effect 90 days after the department
posts notice under subdivision (b) if no other local agency submits a notification under
subdivision (a) of its intent to undertake groundwater management in all or a portion of
the same area. If another notification is filed within the 90-day period, the decision shall
not take effect unless the other notification is withdrawn or modified to eliminate any
overlap in the areas proposed to be managed. The local agencies shall seek to reach
agreement to allow prompt designation of a groundwater sustainability agency.”
(§ 10723.8, subd. (c).)
       SGMA does not include a time limit for the local agencies to reach an agreement
regarding an overlap in the areas proposed to be managed. If an area remains
unmanaged, section 10724, subdivision (a) provides: “[i]n the event that there is an area
within a high- or medium-priority basin that is not within the management area of a
groundwater sustainability agency, the county within which that unmanaged area lies will
be presumed to be the groundwater sustainability agency for that area.”
       With exceptions not relevant here, “after the decision to be a groundwater
sustainability agency takes effect, the groundwater sustainability agency shall be
presumed to be the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency within the area of the
basin within the service area of the local agency that the local agency is managing as
described in the notice.” (§ 10723.8, subd. (d).)
       The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, which includes the 180/400 Foot Aquifer
Subbasin, has been designated as a high priority groundwater basin that is in a state of
critical overdraft. Groundwater sustainability agencies are obligated to develop and
implement a groundwater sustainability plan for a high priority groundwater basin.
(§§ 10727, subd. (a), 10728.4; see King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern
(2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 839, fn. 9.) SGMA provided a deadline of January 31, 2020,

                                             4
for a high priority groundwater basin subject to critical overdraft to be managed under a
groundwater sustainability plan. (§ 10720.7, subd (a)(1).)
        SGMA also provides for state oversight of local groundwater sustainability
agencies’ development and implementation of groundwater sustainability plans.
(§§ 10733 et seq., 10735 et seq.) For example, a high or medium priority groundwater
basin may be designated a probationary basin by the state Water Resources Control
Board where no local agency has decided to form a groundwater sustainability agency
and develop a groundwater sustainability plan for the entire basin. (§ 10735.2, subd. (a).)
            III. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES’S ACTIONS
        In February 2017, Marina Coast Water District elected to become the groundwater
sustainability agency for portions of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin that included the
City of Marina and the former Fort Ord area, where Marina Coast Water District provides
water service. The Department posted Marina Coast Water District’s notice of its
intention to form a groundwater sustainability agency on its website on February 24,
2017.
        On April 27, 2017, the Department posted the SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency’s notice of its decision to become the groundwater sustainability agency for the
180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, including the Fort Ord area and the CEMEX area. The
Department determined that an overlap for the Fort Ord area resulted, since both Marina
Coast Water District and the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency had included the
Ford Ord area in their jurisdiction.
        A year later, in April 2018, City adopted a resolution forming a groundwater
sustainability agency for a small area of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin known as the
CEMEX area, which is within the City and outside the Marina Coast Water District
service area. The Department posted City’s notice of intention to form a groundwater
sustainability agency on its website on April 26, 2018. The Department then determined

                                             5
that an overlap existed in the CEMEX area since both the City and the SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency had included the CEMEX area in their jurisdiction.
        In October 2019, the overlap in the Ford Ord area between Marina Coast Water
District and the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency was resolved with Marina
Coast Water District becoming the groundwater sustainability agency for the Fort Ord
area. The record does not indicate that any party challenged Marina Coast Water
District’s claimed jurisdiction over the Fort Ord area until County raised the issue in the
present litigation.
        However, the Department determined that an overlap remained in the CEMEX
area between City and the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency, and therefore the
CEMEX area remained unmanaged by any groundwater sustainability agency. The
Department also determined that due to the CEMEX overlap most of the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin, including the CEMEX area, was not within the management area of
any groundwater sustainability agency.
        In December 2019, the County’s Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution
approving the formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area
pursuant to section 10724, subdivision (a), which provides: “[i]n the event that there is
an area within a high- or medium-priority basin that is not within the management area of
a groundwater sustainability agency, the county within which that unmanaged area lies
will be presumed to be the groundwater sustainability agency for that area.” Thereafter,
the Department posted the County’s notice of formation of a groundwater sustainability
agency for the CEMEX area on its website, and identified the County’s groundwater
sustainability agency as the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX
area.
        On January 9, 2020, the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted a
resolution approving a groundwater sustainability plan for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer
Subbasin, excluding the CEMEX area. The County and the SVB Groundwater

                                             6
Sustainability Agency then entered into a coordination agreement, whereby the SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency would adopt the groundwater sustainability plan for
the CEMEX area on behalf of the County and implement the groundwater sustainability
plan for the entirety of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, excepting the Fort Ord area.
       On January 30, 2020, the SVB Sustainability Agency adopted the groundwater
sustainability plan for the CEMEX area. The Department then posted the SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the
180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin on its website on January 31, 2020. The County’s Board
of Supervisors adopted a resolution approving the SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area on June 23, 2020. The
end result was that the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s proposed groundwater
sustainability plan covered the entire 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, with the exception
of the Ford Ord area.
                         IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A. Trial Court Proceedings
              1. City’s Writ Petition
       City filed a verified first amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief (hereafter, writ petition or petition) naming the County,
County’s Board of Supervisors, County’s Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(collectively, County) and the Department as respondents and SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency and its Board of Directors as real parties in interest.
       City sought a writ of mandate (1) directing County to refrain from taking any
actions to manage the CEMEX area under SGMA; 3 (2) directing the Department to
remove the County and the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency as the exclusive
groundwater sustainability agencies for the CEMEX area and to reject their groundwater

       3
       We understand City’s references to the “Marina area” in its pleadings to refer to
the CEMEX area at issue in this appeal.

                                              7
sustainability plans for the CEMEX area; and (3) directing the County and SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency to refrain from interfering with City’s exercise of its
right and jurisdiction with respect to the CEMEX area.
       City also sought declaratory relief, including declarations that (1) “[s]ection 10724
does not authorize a county to file a [groundwater sustainability agency] notice for areas
covered by multiple [groundwater sustainability agency] notices”; (2) “where a County is
‘creating or contributing’ to an overlap between [groundwater sustainability agencies], it
is disqualified from acting as a county entitled to utilize Section 10724”; (3) “in an area
that already has multiple overlapping [groundwater sustainability agencies], a County
cannot use Section 10724 to become the sole [groundwater sustainability agency];” and
(4) “[the Department] is not authorized to waive the explicit requirement in . . .
[s]ection 10723.8(c) that a [groundwater sustainability agency] formation notice ‘shall
take effect 90 days after the department posts notice . . . .”
              2. County’s Cross-Petition and Cross-Complaint
       County filed a cross-petition for writ of mandate and a cross-complaint for
declaratory relief (hereafter, writ petition or petition) naming City as cross-defendants
and SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency as real party in interest. In the writ
petition, County sought a writ of mandate directing the Department to remove the City’s
notice of formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area from its
website and to recognize the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency as the exclusive
groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area. County also sought a writ of
mandate “invalidating the City’s formation of the City [Groundwater Sustainability
Agency].”
       As to declaratory relief, County sought declarations that (1) County is the
exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area; or (2) alternatively,
County became the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area
pursuant to section 10724.

                                               8
               3. City’s Cross-Petition and Cross-Complaint
        In its cross-petition, City sought writs of mandate that (1) invalidate the County’s
adoption of a proposed groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area and prohibit
the County from managing the groundwater in the CEMEX area; and (2) direct the
Department to reject the SVB Sustainable Groundwater Agency’s groundwater
sustainability plan for the CEMEX area and remove it from the Department’s website.
        The declaratory relief sought by City in its cross-complaint included declarations
that (1) SVB Groundwater Agency lacked authority to adopt and implement a
groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area; and (2) the City groundwater
sustainability agency has exclusive jurisdiction to manage groundwater in the CEMEX
area.
               4. California-American’s Application for Leave to Intervene
        The application of California-American Water Company (California-American)
for leave to intervene as real party in interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 387, subdivision (d)(2) was granted by the trial court.
        B. Decision and Judgment
        Following a court trial, the trial court issued an August 24, 2021 decision that
denied City’s writ petition and cross-petition and granted County’s writ petition in part.
        The trial court ruled that City’s writ petition and cross-petition were denied on two
alternative grounds. First, the trial court found that, assuming City’s April 2018 notice of
its intention to form a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area was
timely, the notice caused an overlap in the CEMEX area due to the Department’s prior
April 2017 posting of SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s notice of its intention
to form a groundwater sustainability agency for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin,
including the CEMEX area. The trial court then ruled that the Department properly
determined under SGMA that, due to the overlap, the CEMEX area groundwater was
unmanaged and the County was therefore the presumptive groundwater sustainability

                                              9
agency with exclusive management of the CEMEX area pursuant to section 10724. The
court rejected City’s contentions that the County had failed to comply with SGMA’s
notice and hearing requirements.
        Alternatively, the trial court determined that City’s April 2018 notice of formation
of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area was untimely under
section 10723.8 because the notice was submitted to the Department more than 90 days
after SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency submitted notice of its intention to
become the groundwater sustainability agency for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin.
The trial court ruled that since City’s notice was untimely, SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency was the only valid claimant to the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin,
including the CEMEX area, due to the absence of a valid competing claim to the CEMEX
area and the resolution of the overlap in the Fort Ord area. Further, the trial court ruled
that after SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency modified its boundaries to exclude the
CEMEX area, the County properly adopted the SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area through their coordination
agreement, and the Department properly posted the plan on January 31, 2020.
        The trial court concluded that “[t]he [SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s]
[groundwater sustainability plan] adopted by the County is the operative [groundwater
sustainability plan] for all of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin . . . other than the Fort
Ord area” and was properly posted by the Department. However, the trial court rejected
County’s contention that the formation of City’s groundwater management agency was
void.
        On September 27, 2021, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the
decision, denying City’s writ petition and cross-petition and granting County’s cross-
petition in part.

                                             10
                                     V. DISCUSSION
       On appeal from the judgment, City argues that the trial court erred in denying
City’s writ petition and cross-petition because (1) City’s posting of a notice of formation
of City’s groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area was timely, since the
90-day period provided by section 10728.3, subdivision (c) applies only to determine if
an agency will become the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for an area if no
other notice is submitted; (2) section 10724 did not authorize the County to become a
groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area due to the overlap between the
City and SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency; (3) City’s groundwater sustainability
agency became the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area
when SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency excluded the CEMEX area from its
claimed jurisdiction; (4) County failed to submit a valid groundwater sustainability plan
by SGMA’s January 31, 2020 deadline; (5) the Department should have rejected the
groundwater sustainability plan that SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency submitted
because the invalid plan improperly included the CEMEX area; and (6) the Department
lacked authority to post SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater
sustainability plan.
       We will begin our review of City’s contentions with the applicable standard of
review.
       A. Standard of Review
       The California Supreme Court has instructed that “ ‘[u]nless otherwise provided
by law, “the petitioner always bears the burden of proof in a mandate proceeding brought
under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.” [Citation.] Thus, it is petitioner’s burden
to establish that [the agency’s] decision was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in
evidentiary support, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.’ [Citation.]” (American Coatings
Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 460
(American Coatings).)

                                             11
       Additionally, “[i]n reviewing the trial court’s denial of a writ of mandate pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, ‘[w]here the facts are undisputed and the issue
is one of statutory interpretation, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo.’ [Citations.]”
(California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. v. Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 756, 769; Hamilton & High, LLC v. City of
Palo Alto (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 528, 547 [same].)
       When an agency is not exercising a discretionary rulemaking power but merely
construing a controlling statute, “ ‘[t]he appropriate mode of review . . . is one in which
the judiciary, although taking ultimate responsibility for the construction of the statute,
accords great weight and respect to the administrative construction. [Citation.]’
[Citations.]” (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1,
12.) The amount of weight given to an agency’s statutory construction is “ ‘situational,’
and greater weight may be appropriate when an agency has a ‘ “comparative interpretive
advantage over the courts,” ’ as when ‘ “the legal text to be interpreted is technical,
obscure, complex, open-ended, or entwined with issues of fact, policy, and
discretion.” ’ ” (American Coatings, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 461.)
       In performing our review, we apply the well-established rules of statutory
interpretation. “[O]ur fundamental task is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to
effectuate the purpose of the statute. [Citation.] We begin with the language of the
statute, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] The language
must be construed ‘in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory
scheme, and we give “significance to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of an act in
pursuance of the legislative purpose.” ’ [Citation.]” (Smith v. Superior Court (2006)
39 Cal.4th 77, 83 (Smith).)
       “In other words, ‘ “we do not construe statutes in isolation, but rather read every
statute ‘with reference to the entire scheme of law of which it is part so that the whole
may be harmonized and retain effectiveness.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] If the statutory

                                             12
terms are ambiguous, we may examine extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects
to be achieved and the legislative history. [Citation.] In such circumstances, we choose
the construction that comports most closely with the Legislature’s apparent intent,
endeavoring to promote rather than defeat the statute’s general purpose, and avoiding a
construction that would lead to absurd consequences. [Citation.]” (Smith, supra,
39 Cal.4th at p. 83.)
       B. Analysis
              1. Timeliness
       We begin our analysis by determining that it is not necessary to resolve the issue
of whether City’s April 2018 posting of a notice of formation of City’s groundwater
sustainability agency for the CEMEX area was timely under section 10723.8,
subdivision (c). Even assuming that City’s notice was timely, for reasons that we will
explain we conclude that the Department did not err in finding, pursuant to
section 10724, that the County was the presumptive groundwater sustainability agency
for the CEMEX area.
              2. Section 10724
       City contends that section 10724 did not authorize the County to become the
presumptive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area due to the overlap
between City and SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s notices because County
was a member of SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency and therefore could not form
a new groundwater sustainability agency. Alternatively, City argues that properly
interpreted, section 10724 applies only where no local agency has noticed intention to
form a groundwater sustainability agency for an area and a county has the option to step
in as the presumptive groundwater sustainability agency.
       The County and the Department respond that County properly invoked its
authority under section 10724 to form the presumptive groundwater sustainability for the

                                            13
CEMEX area because the overlap caused the CEMEX area to be unmanaged. Applying
the rules of statutory construction, we agree.
       Section 10724, subdivision (a) provides: “[i]n the event that there is an area
within a high- or medium-priority basin that is not within the management area of a
groundwater sustainability agency, the county within which that unmanaged area lies
will be presumed to be the groundwater sustainability agency for that area.” Notably,
section 10724 does not require a county already presumed to be a groundwater
sustainability agency pursuant to section 10724 to submit a notice of its intent to become
a groundwater sustainability agency to the Department for a 90-day posting period.
       We construe section 10724, subdivision (a) in the context of the SGMA statutory
scheme. (See Smith, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 83.) In particular, section 10723.8 provides
context for construing section 10724. Section 10723.8, subdivision (c) provides that
“[t]he decision to become a groundwater sustainability agency shall take effect 90 days
after the department posts notice under subdivision (b) if no other local agency submits a
notification under subdivision (a) of its intent to undertake groundwater management in
all or a portion of the same area. If another notification is filed within the 90-day period,
the decision shall not take effect unless the other notification is withdrawn or modified to
eliminate any overlap in the areas proposed to be managed. The local agencies shall seek
to reach agreement to allow prompt designation of a groundwater sustainability agency.”
       Section 10723.8 subdivision (d) provides in part that “after the decision to be a
groundwater sustainability agency takes effect, the groundwater sustainability agency
shall be presumed to be the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency within the area
of the basin within the service area of the local agency that the local agency is managing
as described in the notice.”
       The Department construes these statutes together to mean that an area of a
groundwater basin is unmanaged where two agencies have submitted notification of
intent to form a groundwater sustainability agency for the same area, and due to the

                                             14
overlap neither agency can become the effective groundwater sustainability agency for
that area. Where the two agencies (here, City and SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency) have not voluntarily reached an agreement “to allow prompt designation of a
groundwater sustainability agency” under section 10723.8, subdivision (c), the
Department asserts that “[s]ection 10724 simply fills that gap, and allows a county . . .
to become the [groundwater sustainability agency] to avoid state intervention and the
potential designation of probationary status [under section 10735.2, subdivision (a)].”
       We agree with the Department’s construction of section 10724, subdivision (a)
because it is apparent that where an overlap exists, neither groundwater sustainability
agency has become the effective agency authorized to submit a groundwater management
plan, and therefore the disputed area is unmanaged for purposes of SGMA. (See, e.g.
§ 10723.8, subd. (d).) Further, the Department’s interpretation is consistent with the
Legislature’s stated intent in enacting SGMA, as stated in section 10720, “[t]o enhance
local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater” and
“[t]o manage groundwater basins through the actions of local governmental agencies to
the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention to only when necessary
to ensure that local agencies manage groundwater in a sustainable manner.” (§10720.1,
subds. (b) & (h).)
       Accordingly, we agree with the Department that under section 10724 the County
could step in as the presumptive groundwater management agency for the CEMEX area
when City and SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency failed to reach an agreement
to allow prompt designation of a groundwater sustainability agency, pursuant to
section 10723.8, subdivision (c). Therefore, the Department properly posted the
County’s notice of formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX
area on its website, and properly identified the County’s groundwater sustainability
agency as the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area.

                                             15
              3. Joint Powers Authority
        We are not persuaded by City’s argument that County’s notice of its intent to form
a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area was not authorized under
SGMA because the County is a member of SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a
joint powers authority, which had already noticed its intention to form a groundwater
sustainability agency for the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin including the CEMEX area.
A joint powers authority is separate and independent from its members. (Gov. Code,
§ 6507; Robings v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 952,
961.)
              4. Dispute Resolution Procedure
        City’s reliance on sections 10735.2 and 10735.6 as providing a dispute resolution
procedure that would be ineffective if section 10724 is construed to allow County to step
in as a presumptive groundwater sustainability agency is misplaced. Sections 10735.2
and 10735.6 concern the Water Resources Control Board’s authority to designate a
groundwater basin as probationary and remedy deficiencies in certain circumstances not
applicable here, such as the lack of a groundwater sustainability agency that intends to
develop a groundwater sustainability plan for an entire basin. 4
              5. County’s Exclusion of CEMEX Area
        Also unpersuasive is City’s argument that its groundwater sustainability agency
became the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area when

        4
         Section 10735.2, subdivision (a)(4)(A) provides in part: “The [Water Resources
Control Board], after notice and a public hearing, may designate a high- or medium-
priority basin as a probationary basin, if the board finds one or more of the following
applies to the basin: [¶] . . .[¶] [A]fter January 31, 2020, none of the following have
occurred: [¶] A groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater
sustainability plan for the entire basin.” Section 10735.6, subdivision (b) provides in
part: “The [Water Resources Control Board] may develop an interim plan pursuant to
Section 10735.8 for the probationary basin one year after the designation of the basin . . .
if the board, in consultation with the department, determines that a local agency has not
remedied the deficiency that resulted in designating the basin a probationary basin.”

                                             16
SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency excluded the CEMEX area from its claimed
jurisdiction. SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency responds that it never relinquished
its claim to the CEMEX area but merely adjusted its boundaries at the request of the
Department for administrative reasons after the Department confirmed the County as the
exclusive groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX area.
       We observe that the record reflects that the County and the SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency entered into a coordination agreement, whereby the SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency would adopt the groundwater sustainability plan for
the CEMEX area on behalf of the County and implement the groundwater sustainability
plan for the entirety of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin (excluding the Fort Ord area).
City provides no authority for the proposition that the coordination agreement was not
authorized under SGMA. To the contrary, SGMA reflects the Legislature’s intent that
local government agencies cooperate to promptly manage groundwater basins and
minimize state intervention. (§10720.1, subds. (b), (h).) 5
       Consequently, we also find no merit in City’s contention that the Department
should have rejected SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater
sustainability plan because the invalid plan improperly included the CEMEX area.
              6. January 31, 2020 Deadline
       We understand City to argue that County failed to submit a valid groundwater
sustainability plan for the CEMEX area by SGMA’s January 31, 2020 deadline because
the County’s Board of Supervisors did not adopt a resolution approving the SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX
area until June 23, 2020. However, the January 31, 2020 deadline set forth in
section 10720.7, subdivision (a)(1) for a high-priority groundwater basin to be managed
under a groundwater sustainability plan does not include any express consequences for

       5
        According to the Department, “[t]his case is one of only two lawsuits of which
[the Department] is aware resulting from a dispute under SGMA among local agencies.”

                                             17
failure to meet the deadline. The California Supreme Court has instructed that
“requirements relating to the time within which an act must be done are directory rather
than mandatory or jurisdictional, unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed.
[Citations.]” (Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 410; see also California
Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145.)
       Moreover, “statutory time limits applicable to government action are usually
deemed to be directory in the absence of a penalty or consequence for noncompliance.”
(State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 349,
364.) Here, section 10720.7, subdivision (a)(1) imposes no penalty on a groundwater
sustainability agency that did not meet the January 31, 2020 deadline, and therefore the
January 31, 2020 deadline was not mandatory. As we have noted, the statutory
consequence where no local agency decided to form a groundwater sustainability agency
and develop a groundwater sustainability plan for a high or medium priority groundwater
basin by January 31, 2020, is that the basin “may” be designated a probationary basin by
the state Water Resources Control Board. (§ 10735.2, subd. (a).) The word “may”
indicates that the Water Resource Control Board’s decision to designate a high or
medium priority basin as probationary is discretionary, since “the word ‘ “may” ’ is
ordinarily deemed permissive.” (See Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Financial Corp. (2020)
48 Cal.App.5th 129, 165.) Accordingly, we find no merit in City’s challenge to the
County’s approval of SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater
sustainability plan for the CEMEX area on the grounds that the approval was untimely.
              7. Posting of SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s Plan
       Finally, City contends that the Department lacked authority under SGMA to post
SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the
180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin on its website on January 31, 2020. According to City,
when SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency relinquished the CEMEX area, the result
was that its groundwater sustainability plan was invalid and City’s plan was the only

                                             18
valid groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area that the Department should
have accepted and posted.
       The Department rejects City’s contention, pointing out that City’s groundwater
sustainability agency never became effective due to the overlap in the CEMEX area that
resulted from both SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency and City posting notices of
their decisions to form a groundwater sustainability agency that included the CEMEX
area in their jurisdiction. We agree.
       As we have discussed, under section 10723.8, subdivision (c), City’s decision to
form a groundwater sustainability agency did not take effect due to the overlap in the
CEMEX area. Since City’s groundwater sustainability agency never became effective,
it was not authorized under SGMA to submit a groundwater sustainability plan for the
CEMEX area that the Department was required to post. (§§ 10723.8, subds. (c) & (d),
§ 10733.4.)
       Further, we have previously determined that County properly stepped in as the
presumptive ground water sustainability agency for the CEMEX area pursuant to
section 10724 because the overlap caused the CEMEX area to be unmanaged. The
record reflects that on January 9, 2020, the SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency
adopted a resolution approving a groundwater sustainability plan for the 180/400 Foot
Aquifer Subbasin, excluding the CEMEX area. The County and the SVB Groundwater
Sustainability Agency then entered into a coordination agreement, whereby the SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency would adopt the groundwater sustainability plan
for the CEMEX area on behalf of the County and implement the groundwater
sustainability plan for the entirety of the 180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin, excluding the
Fort Ord area. On January 30, 2020, the SVB Sustainability Agency adopted the
groundwater sustainability plan for the CEMEX area. The Department then posted the
SVB Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s groundwater sustainability plan for the
180/400 Foot Aquifer Subbasin on its website on January 31, 2020. City has provided no

                                            19
authority for the proposition that the County and SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency were precluded from entering into a coordination agreement that would allow
implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan for the entirety of the 180/400 Foot
Aquifer Subbasin, excluding the Fort Ord area.
       C. County’s Cross-Appeal
       The County contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant the County’s
request for a declaration that City’s formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for
the CEMEX area was void because City’s notice of formation was untimely and SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency was the exclusive groundwater sustainability agency
for the CEMEX area.
       City responds that the trial court correctly declined to nullify the formation of
City’s groundwater sustainability agency because there is no basis for voiding the
existence of the agency. The Department agrees, arguing that the trial court did not err,
since City’s notice of formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX
area was properly posted by the Department but was rendered ineffective under
section 10723.8, subdivision (c) due to the overlap with SVB Groundwater Sustainability
Agency’s notice.
       We need not decide whether the trial court erred in denying County’s request for a
declaration that City’s formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX
area was void. We need only determine under SGMA, as we have previously discussed,
that City’s notice of formation of a groundwater sustainability agency for the CEMEX
area was ineffective under section 10723.8, subdivision (c) due to the overlap with SVB
Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s notice, and the overlap resulted in the CEMEX
area being unmanaged and County stepping in as the presumptive groundwater
sustainability agency for the CEMEX area under section 10724.

                                             20
                                    VI. CONCLUSION
       For these reasons, we conclude, pursuant to the provisions of SGMA,
section 10720 et seq., that the trial court did not err in denying City’s petition for a writ
of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief and cross-petition and granting County’s
cross-petition and cross-complaint for declaratory relief in part. We will therefore affirm
the September 27, 2021 judgment.
                                    VII. DISPOSITION
       The September 27, 2021 judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own
costs on appeal.

                                              21
                                  BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

GREENWOOD, P.J.

WILSON, J.

City of Marina et al. v. County of Monterey et al.
H049575
Trial Court:                                  Monterey County Superior Court
                                              Superior Court No. 19CV005270

Trial Judge:                                  Hon. Thomas W. Wills

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants,   Paul P. Spaulding, III
Cross-complainants and Appellants:            Larisa A. Meisenheimer
City of Marina                                Joseph V. Mauch
Marina Groundwater Sustainability Agency      Susanne S. Orza
Marina City Council                           Shartsis Friese LLP

Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-              Kevin M. O’Brien
complainants, Cross-defendants and            Meredith E. Nikkel
Respondents:                                  Samuel Bivins
County of Monterey                            Downey Brand LLP
County of Monterey Groundwater
Sustainability Agency                         Leslie J. Girard, County Counsel
Monterey County Board of Supervisors          Kelly L. Donlon, Assistant County Counsel
                                              County of Monterey

Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-              Ron Bonta, Attorney General of California
complainants, Cross-defendants and            Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney
Respondents:                                  General
California Water Resources                    Myung J. Park, Supervising Deputy Attorney
Karla Nemeth                                  General
                                              Marc N. Melnick, Deputy Attorney General
                                              Bradley Solomon, Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest and    Dustin C. Cooper
Respondents:                                  Andrew J. McClure
Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater              Minasian, Meith, Soares, Sexton & Cooper,
Sustainability Agency                         LLP
Board of Directors of the Salinas Valley
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Attorneys for Intervenor and Real Party in    Duncan Joseph Moore
Interest:                                     Winston P. Stromberg
California-American Water Company             Lucas I. Quass
                                              Latham & Watkins, LLP

                                              Robert E. Donlan
                                              Shawnda Marie Grady
                                              Ellison Schneider Harris & Donlan

City of Marina et al. v. County of Monterey et al.
H049575