Environmental and water law govern how land gets developed, how water gets used, and how agriculture and industry operate across California's Central Valley. Three legal frameworks do most of the work: the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state's system of water rights administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). For developers, water agencies, agricultural operators, and local governments, understanding how these regimes interact is the difference between a project that moves and one that stalls in litigation.
TL;DR
- CEQA requires California public agencies to study, disclose, and mitigate the significant environmental effects of projects before approving them, and it is enforced through litigation.
- California recognizes two main surface water rights: riparian rights tied to land touching a watercourse, and appropriative rights that generally require a State Water Board permit for post-1914 use.
- SGMA, enacted in 2014, requires local agencies to bring overdrafted groundwater basins into balanced pumping and recharge within 20 years of adopting a sustainability plan.
- The Central Valley concentrates all three pressures at once: heavy agricultural water demand, severe groundwater overdraft, and development subject to CEQA.
- Wanger Jones Helsley PC was recognized in Environment in the Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2026, reflecting its CEQA and water law practice.
What is CEQA and how does it affect development in California?
CEQA requires every California state and local agency to identify, publicly disclose, and mitigate the significant environmental effects of a project before approving it. Enacted in 1970 and codified at Public Resources Code section 21000 and following, the statute makes environmental review a precondition to agency action rather than an afterthought. California Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, CEQA
When a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that analyzes those effects, identifies feasible mitigation measures, and evaluates alternatives. An agency generally may not approve a project if feasible mitigation or a superior alternative would substantially lessen the harm. The process starts with notice to the Governor's Office State Clearinghouse and to responsible and trustee agencies. California Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, CEQA
CEQA matters because it is enforced by lawsuit. Project opponents, neighbors, and industry challengers routinely sue on the theory that an agency approved a project before completing adequate review. The most consequential CEQA errors tend to share a pattern:
- Approving a project before the environmental review is complete.
- Splitting the authority to approve a project from the responsibility to review it.
- Deferring the formulation of mitigation measures until after approval.
- Failing to address a "fair argument" that the project will cause significant effects.
What kinds of water rights disputes arise in California?
California recognizes two primary categories of surface water right, riparian and appropriative, and disputes usually turn on which right a user holds and its priority. A riparian right belongs to land that touches a lake, river, stream, or creek, entitles the owner to the natural flow, and requires no permit or government approval. California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQs
An appropriative right covers water used on non-riparian land, or water that would not naturally be present. Anyone who began appropriating surface water after 1914 must obtain a permit or license from the State Water Resources Control Board, while a right established before 1914 is a senior pre-1914 appropriative right. Riparian rights generally hold higher priority than appropriative rights, and in a drought riparian holders share the shortage among themselves. California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQs
Three categories cover most surface water use:
- Riparian right: attached to land touching a watercourse; entitles the owner to the natural flow; no permit required; highest priority.
- Pre-1914 appropriative right: established before 1914; senior; not subject to State Water Board permitting.
- Post-1914 appropriative right: requires a permit or license from the State Water Resources Control Board. California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQs
Because priority determines who gets water when supply is short, water disputes are fundamentally about seniority and administration. The State Water Board has administrative authority over post-1914 appropriative rights, which makes board proceedings a central forum for water users, agencies, and municipalities defending or asserting their supply. California State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights FAQs
How does SGMA change groundwater management in the Central Valley?
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, enacted in 2014, requires local agencies to halt groundwater overdraft and bring high and medium priority basins into balanced pumping and recharge. In practice, SGMA works through a few core requirements:
- Local agencies form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for high and medium priority basins.
- Each GSA adopts and implements a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP).
- Basins must reach balanced pumping and recharge within 20 years of adopting a plan.
- Pumping becomes subject to allocations, fees, and enforceable plans. California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The compliance timeline is long but firm. SGMA gives basins 20 years from adopting their sustainability plans to reach balance, which puts the most critically overdrafted basins on the earliest path. The San Joaquin Valley, where chronic groundwater overdraft has been most severe, contains many of the state's most stressed basins, placing Central Valley agricultural operators and water agencies at the center of SGMA implementation. California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
For growers and landowners, SGMA turns groundwater from a largely unregulated resource into one governed by pumping allocations, fees, and plans that can be challenged and enforced. That shift generates a steady stream of legal questions about allocations, GSA governance, and the interaction between groundwater rules and existing surface water rights.
How do endangered species laws affect Central Valley land and water?
Both federal and California endangered species laws can restrict how land is developed and how water is used by prohibiting the "take" of protected species without a permit. Three mechanisms do most of the work:
- Federal ESA, Section 9: makes it unlawful to take a listed species, where "take" includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, or capture. NOAA Fisheries, Endangered Species Act
- Federal ESA, Section 7: requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries so that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do not jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. NOAA Fisheries, Endangered Species Act
- California ESA (Fish and Game Code section 2050 and following): separately prohibits the take of state-listed species, and under Section 2081(b) the Department of Fish and Wildlife may issue an incidental take permit only when the take is incidental to a lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, and the permit will not jeopardize the species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CESA Permitting
For Central Valley projects on agricultural or undeveloped land, species and habitat issues frequently overlap with CEQA review, because a project subject to CEQA that may harm a listed species generally must also obtain the necessary take permits.
What environmental and water challenges are specific to the Central Valley?
The Central Valley faces environmental, water, and land use pressures simultaneously, which is why counsel in the region works across all three frameworks at once. Agriculture drives enormous water demand, groundwater overdraft is severe, and the San Joaquin Valley carries some of the nation's most difficult air quality burdens, all while development continues under CEQA. These forces overlap in a single project far more often than they do elsewhere in the state.
A dairy expansion, a new subdivision, a solar facility, or a change in an air or water regulation can trigger several regimes together. The recurring themes for Central Valley clients include:
- Water supply reliability as surface deliveries fluctuate and SGMA constrains groundwater.
- CEQA exposure on development, infrastructure, and regulatory actions.
- Regulatory compliance before agencies like the State Water Board and the Air Resources Board.
- Endangered Species Act and habitat issues on agricultural and development land.
- Disputes among public agencies, special districts, and private users over shared resources.
How has Wanger Jones Helsley shaped California environmental law?
Wanger Jones Helsley PC has litigated landmark CEQA challenges before the California Court of Appeal, twice persuading the Fifth Appellate District that the Air Resources Board approved major regulations without completing the environmental review CEQA requires.
The firm was recognized in Environment in the Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2026, a recognition Chambers ties to a team that represents developers and local governments in water law, CEQA, and Endangered Species Act matters. Chambers USA, Wanger Jones Helsley PC Spotlight profile
In POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board, the Fifth Appellate District held that CARB violated CEQA when it approved the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations before completing environmental review, split approval authority from review responsibility, and improperly deferred mitigation. The court ordered CARB to redo its CEQA process while allowing the existing regulations to remain in effect. POET, LLC v. Cal. Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681
Five years later in John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Resources Board, the same court held that CARB again violated CEQA, this time by approving modifications to the Truck and Bus Regulation, including deadline extensions for small fleets, before finishing the required environmental analysis. The court found the agency's conduct also violated the Administrative Procedure Act and voided the modified regulations. John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. v. State Air Resources Bd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 77
The table below summarizes both matters.
| Case | Year | Regulation challenged | CEQA holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| POET, LLC v. CARB | 2013 | Low Carbon Fuel Standard | Approved before review complete; deferred mitigation |
| Lawson v. Air Resources Board | 2018 | Truck and Bus Regulation modifications | Approved before environmental analysis complete |
The firm's environmental and water practice is led by two shareholders:
- John P. Kinsey: a Certified Specialist in Appellate Law whose practice centers on environmental regulation, administrative law, and CEQA litigation.
- Robert E. Donlan: anchors the firm's Sacramento office and represents water agencies, commercial and institutional water users, energy companies, agricultural operators, and municipalities before the State Water Resources Control Board and state and federal courts.
What should you look for in environmental and water counsel?
Effective environmental and water counsel combines regulatory fluency with litigation and appellate experience, because these matters routinely move from an agency proceeding into court. A CEQA dispute can begin at a planning commission and end at the Court of Appeal, and a water matter can run from a State Water Board hearing to a writ petition. Counsel who has only handled one stage is at a disadvantage.
When evaluating counsel for a Central Valley environmental or water matter, look for:
- Demonstrated CEQA litigation results, ideally including published appellate decisions.
- Direct experience before the State Water Resources Control Board and the Air Resources Board.
- Familiarity with SGMA implementation and groundwater sustainability agencies.
- Regional knowledge of Central Valley agriculture, water districts, and land use.
- The ability to advise on compliance before a dispute arises, not only to litigate after.
FAQ
What is CEQA compliance and who needs it?
CEQA compliance means a California public agency has studied, disclosed, and mitigated a project's significant environmental effects before approving it. Any project needing a discretionary government approval, from a subdivision to a regulation, can trigger CEQA. Developers, agencies, and applicants all rely on adequate review to withstand legal challenge.
What is the difference between riparian and appropriative water rights?
A riparian right belongs to land touching a watercourse and entitles the owner to the natural flow without a permit. An appropriative right covers water used on non-riparian land or beyond natural flow, and post-1914 use requires a State Water Board permit. Riparian rights generally hold higher priority.
What does SGMA require of Central Valley landowners?
SGMA requires local groundwater sustainability agencies to bring overdrafted basins into balance through groundwater sustainability plans. For Central Valley landowners, that means pumping in basins now subject to allocations, fees, and enforceable plans, with each basin given 20 years from adopting its plan to reach sustainability.
Which agencies regulate California water and land use?
The State Water Resources Control Board administers surface water rights and water quality, the Department of Water Resources oversees SGMA groundwater implementation, and local agencies and GSAs manage basins and land use. The Air Resources Board regulates emissions, and CEQA review runs through whichever agency approves a given project.
Do agricultural operators need environmental counsel?
Yes, in most cases involving expansion, water supply, or regulatory change. Central Valley agricultural operations sit at the intersection of water rights, SGMA groundwater rules, CEQA, air quality regulation, and endangered species issues. Counsel helps operators secure water, comply with overlapping rules, and respond when a regulation or project is challenged.
The bottom line
Environmental, water, and land use law in the Central Valley is defined by three overlapping frameworks, CEQA for project review, the water rights system administered by the State Water Board, and SGMA for groundwater, all pressing on the same clients at the same time. The stakes are concrete: a flawed CEQA review can void a regulation or halt a project, and a misjudged water right can leave an operation short in a drought. The firms that serve the region well are the ones that can both keep a client compliant and, when necessary, take the fight through the Court of Appeal.
Wanger Jones Helsley PC's environmental and water practice, recognized in the Chambers USA California Spotlight Guide 2026, is led by John P. Kinsey and Robert E. Donlan.