Designing Effective Groundwater Sustainability Agencies: Criteria for Evaluation of Local Governance Options

With the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)1 in 2014, California took a historic step towards managing the state’s groundwater resources. SGMA adopts a state policy of managing groundwater resources “sustainably for long-term reliability and multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits for current and future beneficial uses.”2 Although these ambitious goals are critical to California’s future water security and sustainablility, major questions remain about how to achieve them. Designing institutions for sustainable groundwater management is one of the most pressing challenges for SGMA implementation. Local entities in mediumand high-priority basins must establish Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) by June 2017. GSA design and structure will play a critical role in meeting the sustainability goals required by SGMA. Because designing new institutions for good governance is not easy, the need for information and guidance is acute.

SGMA leaves great latitude for local decision making. Primary responsibility for groundwater governance lies with GSAs, to be established by local entities in groundwater basins or sub-basins. SGMA does not specify the details for institutional design of GSAs, nor what specific governance actions must be taken to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Instead, the legislation provides an array of regulatory and non-regulatory tools—mostly optional—from which GSAs can choose. Those tools, in addition to existing authorities already available to local agencies, will provide the basis for groundwater governance in each basin. The relatively short timeline for GSA formation requires local governments and other stakeholders to analyze available options and decide, quickly, how to form novel agencies. These agencies should be armed with the tools necessary to meet current and future groundwater challenges.

While no governance solution is ever perfect, GSAs will have a greater chance of governing fairly and effectively if their design anticipates some common challenges of shared resource governance.

The primary purpose of this document is to assist stakeholders and decision makers in evaluating the design of GSAs. It aims to empower them to think critically about whether proposed GSAs will meet their needs now and in the future, and—if not—which tools may help to achieve these goals. The framework presented here draws on experience in other natural resource management contexts and on research on governance and institutional design to provide lessons learned and illustrative examples.