Title 10. Actions In Particular Cases · Chapter 7. Actions Relating to Groundwater Rights · Article 16. Judgment · Last amended 2024 · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceSection 850 requires the court to find constitutional consistency, fair treatment of nonstipulating and exempted parties, and consideration of small farmers and disadvantaged communities before entering judgment, allows referral to the State Water Resources Control Board, and lets a sufficiently supported stipulated judgment bind objecting parties who can't disprove it.
(a)The court may enter a judgment in a comprehensive adjudication if the court finds that the judgment meets all of the following criteria:
(1)It is consistent with Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.
(2)It is consistent with the water right priorities of all nonstipulating parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted pursuant to Section 833 in the basin.
(3)It treats all objecting parties and any persons who have claims that are exempted pursuant to Section 833 equitably as compared to the stipulating parties.
(4)It considers the water use of and accessibility of water for small farmers and disadvantaged communities. This consideration shall be consistent with the conditions identified in this subdivision.
(b)The court may enter judgment in an adjudication action for a basin required to have a groundwater sustainability plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Part 2.74 (commencing with Section 10720) of Division 6 of the Water Code), if in addition to the criteria enumerated in subdivision (a), the court also finds that the judgment will not substantially impair the ability of a groundwater sustainability agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the department to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and to achieve sustainable groundwater management.
(1)In order to assist the court in making the findings required by this section, the court may refer the matter to the State Water Resources Control Board for investigation and report pursuant to Section 2001 of the Water Code. A party may request that the court refer the matter to the State Water Resources Control Board pursuant to this subdivision.
(2)Notwithstanding any inconsistencies with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2010) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Water Code, for a reference undertaken by the State Water Resources Control Board under paragraph (1), the State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Water Resources shall jointly investigate and submit the report under paragraph (1).
(d)If a party or group of parties submits a proposed stipulated judgment that is supported by more than 50 percent of all parties who are groundwater extractors in the basin or use the basin for groundwater storage and is supported by groundwater extractors responsible for at least 75 percent of the groundwater extracted in the basin during the five calendar years before the filing of the complaint, the court may adopt the proposed stipulated judgment, as applied to the stipulating parties, if the proposed stipulated judgment meets the criteria described in subdivision (a). A party objecting to a proposed stipulated judgment shall demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed stipulated judgment does not satisfy one or more criteria described in subdivision (a) or that it substantially violates the water rights of the objecting party. If the objecting party is unable to make this showing, the court may impose the proposed stipulated judgment on the objecting party. An objecting party may be subject to a preliminary injunction issued pursuant to Section 847 while their objections are being resolved.
(e)For purposes of this section the following definitions apply:
(1)"Disadvantaged communities" means communities identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency as disadvantaged communities pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)"Small farmers" means farmers with between ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) in gross farm sales, as referenced in the Department of Food and Agriculture's California Underserved and Small Producers Program.
Plain-English Summary
This section sets the criteria for entering a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication. Subdivision (a) requires the judgment to be consistent with the state constitution's reasonable-use provision, consistent with the water right priorities of nonstipulating parties and exempted claimants, equitable as to objecting parties and exempted claimants compared to stipulating parties, and considerate of small farmers' and disadvantaged communities' water use and access.
Subdivision (b) adds a further requirement for basins that must have a groundwater sustainability plan: the judgment also can't substantially impair a groundwater sustainability agency's, the State Water Resources Control Board's, or the Department of Water Resources's ability to comply with, and achieve the goals of, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Subdivision (c) lets the court refer the matter to the State Water Resources Control Board for investigation and report, on its own initiative or a party's request, with the board and department jointly investigating and reporting when that happens.
Subdivision (d) addresses stipulated judgments backed by a critical mass of the basin's water users — more than half of all parties who are groundwater extractors or storage users, and extractors responsible for at least 75 percent of the water extracted in the five years before filing. If that threshold is met and the judgment satisfies subdivision (a)'s criteria, the court may adopt it as to the stipulating parties. An objecting party must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the judgment fails those criteria or substantially violates that party's own rights — and if the objector can't make that showing, the court may impose the judgment on the objector too, potentially backed by a preliminary injunction under § 847 while the objection is pending. Subdivision (e) defines "disadvantaged communities" and "small farmers" by reference to existing statutory and program criteria.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the court find before entering judgment in a comprehensive adjudication?
Constitutional consistency, consistency with nonstipulating and exempted parties' priorities, equitable treatment of objecting and exempted parties, and consideration of small farmers' and disadvantaged communities' water access.
Can the court refer the case to the State Water Resources Control Board before entering judgment?
Yes, on its own motion or a party's request, for investigation and report, potentially jointly with the Department of Water Resources.
Can a stipulated judgment bind parties who didn't agree to it?
Yes, if it's supported by more than half of all groundwater extractor or storage-user parties and extractors responsible for at least 75 percent of extraction in the prior five years, and the objecting party can't prove it fails the statutory criteria or substantially violates that party's rights.
What happens to an objecting party while its objection to a stipulated judgment is being resolved?
The objecting party may be subject to a preliminary injunction issued under § 847 in the meantime.
Amendment History
Amended by Stats 2023 ch 665 (AB 779),s 3, eff. 1/1/2024. Amended by Stats 2016 ch 86 (SB 1171),s 28, eff. 1/1/2017. Added by Stats 2015 ch 672 (AB 1390),s 1, eff. 1/1/2016.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:entering judgment groundwater adjudication californiastipulated judgment groundwater case