Hayward Quietly Amends Groundwater Deal with East Bay MUD — What Changed, and Why Should You Care?
The City Council just authorized the city manager to sign Amendment No. 1 to the East Bay Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Implementation Agreement with East Bay Municipal Utility District. No public comment. No debate. Just a unanimous vote on a complex water management deal that could affect Hayward for decades.
On August 19, 2025, the Hayward City Council passed Resolution 25-147, approving changes to a regional groundwater agreement that most residents don’t even know exists. Mayor Mark Salinas and Council Members Julie Roche, George Syrop, Ray Bonilla Jr., Francisco Zermeño, Daniel Goldstein, and Angela Andrews all voted yes.
The official minutes provide almost no detail about what the amendment actually does. No explanation of what changed from the original agreement. No discussion of costs, obligations, or long-term implications. Just a bureaucratic line item approved without scrutiny.
This is how important policy decisions get made in Hayward: quietly, quickly, and with minimal public accountability.
What Is the East Bay Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan?
Let’s start with the basics, since the city won’t explain them.
California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 2014, requires local agencies to manage groundwater basins sustainably. The law was a response to decades of over-pumping that caused land subsidence, depleted aquifers, and threatened long-term water security.
The East Bay Plain Subbasin is a groundwater basin shared by multiple cities and water agencies, including Hayward and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Under SGMA, these agencies must work together to create and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) that prevents over-extraction and ensures the basin remains viable for future generations.
That’s the theory. In practice, it means Hayward is entering into long-term agreements with EBMUD and other regional players that will dictate how much groundwater the city can pump, what it will cost, and who controls access to this critical resource.
The original Implementation Agreement was signed to formalize how these agencies would work together. Now the city is amending it. And taxpayers have no idea what changed or why.
What Does Amendment No. 1 Do?
Here’s the problem: the official minutes don’t say.
The resolution authorizes the city manager to “execute Amendment No. 1” to the agreement, but it doesn’t explain:
- What provisions are being changed
- Why the amendment is necessary
- What it will cost Hayward
- What new obligations the city is taking on
- How it affects Hayward’s water rights or access to groundwater
For all we know, this could be a minor technical correction — updating contact information or adjusting a reporting deadline. Or it could be a major policy shift that gives EBMUD more control over Hayward’s groundwater access.
We don’t know. The city didn’t think taxpayers needed to know. And the council approved it without asking.
That’s not transparency. That’s a rubber stamp on a blank check.
Why This Matters: Water Is Power
Groundwater isn’t just an environmental issue. It’s an economic and political one.
In California, water is the most valuable resource. Cities that control their water supply have autonomy. Cities that depend on others for water are at their mercy. And in a drought-prone state where climate change is making water scarcity worse, groundwater is increasingly critical.
Here’s what’s at stake:
1. Water Security
Hayward relies on a combination of imported water (from EBMUD and other sources) and local groundwater. If the city loses access to groundwater or faces restrictions on how much it can pump, it becomes more dependent on EBMUD. That means higher costs and less control over water policy.
2. Development Capacity
Water availability determines how much the city can grow. If groundwater access is limited, new housing developments, commercial projects, and industrial facilities may be restricted. That affects property values, tax revenue, and economic growth.
3. Cost to Ratepayers
Groundwater is typically cheaper than imported water. If Hayward has to buy more water from EBMUD because groundwater access is restricted, ratepayers will see higher bills. And unlike taxes, which require voter approval, water rates can be raised by city councils and utility boards with minimal public input.
4. Regulatory Compliance
SGMA gives the state power to intervene if local agencies fail to manage groundwater sustainably. If Hayward and EBMUD don’t meet their obligations under the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, the state can impose its own management regime — stripping local control entirely.
So when the city amends its groundwater agreement with EBMUD, it’s not just paperwork. It’s a decision that could affect water security, development capacity, and costs for decades to come.
And the council approved it without public discussion.
The EBMUD Dynamic: Partner or Overlord?
East Bay Municipal Utility District is one of the most powerful water agencies in California. It serves 1.4 million customers across Alameda and Contra Costa counties, controls vast water infrastructure, and has significant political influence.
EBMUD is also Hayward’s primary water supplier. The city buys most of its water from EBMUD, which gives the utility district enormous leverage in negotiations.
When Hayward signs agreements with EBMUD, it’s not a partnership of equals. It’s a smaller city dealing with a regional powerhouse that controls resources Hayward desperately needs.
That power dynamic matters when amendments are negotiated. If EBMUD pushes for changes that benefit the district at Hayward’s expense, does the city have the leverage to push back? Or does it just sign whatever EBMUD wants because refusing would jeopardize the water supply?
We don’t know. The city didn’t disclose what was negotiated or whether Hayward got a good deal.
What the Amendment Could Include (And Why It Matters)
Without seeing the actual text of Amendment No. 1, we can only speculate about what changed. But based on how these agreements typically work, here are the possibilities:
1. Changes to Pumping Allocations
The amendment could adjust how much groundwater each agency is allowed to pump. If Hayward’s allocation is reduced, the city will have to buy more expensive water from EBMUD. If it’s increased, ratepayers could save money — but at the risk of over-pumping and state intervention.
2. Cost-Sharing Adjustments
Implementing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan costs money: monitoring wells, data analysis, administrative overhead, compliance reporting. The amendment could change how those costs are divided among participating agencies. If Hayward’s share increases, taxpayers pay more.
3. Governance Changes
The original agreement likely established a joint governance structure for managing the basin. The amendment could change voting rules, decision-making authority, or dispute resolution procedures. If EBMUD gains more control, Hayward loses autonomy.
4. Compliance Deadlines
SGMA requires groundwater basins to achieve sustainability by 2040. The amendment could adjust interim milestones, reporting requirements, or enforcement mechanisms. If Hayward faces stricter deadlines or penalties, it could drive up costs.
5. Water Trading or Transfer Provisions
Some groundwater agreements allow agencies to buy, sell, or trade pumping rights. The amendment could introduce or modify these provisions, creating a water market that benefits some agencies at the expense of others.
Any of these changes could have significant financial and policy implications for Hayward. But taxpayers have no way to evaluate them because the city didn’t disclose what the amendment does.
The Cost Question Nobody Asked
Here’s what the council should have asked: What does this amendment cost?
Groundwater agreements aren’t free. They come with obligations:
- Monitoring and reporting: Installing wells, collecting data, submitting reports to the state
- Administrative overhead: Staff time, legal review, compliance coordination
- Infrastructure investment: Projects to reduce groundwater reliance or improve recharge
- Penalties for non-compliance: Fines or state intervention if sustainability targets aren’t met
All of that costs money. And when the city amends an agreement, those costs can change.
If Amendment No. 1 increases Hayward’s financial obligations, taxpayers deserve to know. If it reduces them, that’s worth celebrating. But without disclosure, we’re left guessing.
The resolution says nothing about costs. The minutes record no discussion. And the council approved it anyway.
The Transparency Failure
This is a textbook example of how local governments hide important decisions in plain sight.
The amendment was buried in the consent calendar — the part of the agenda reserved for routine, non-controversial items that get approved in a single vote without discussion. That’s appropriate for things like approving meeting minutes or accepting small grants.
It’s not appropriate for amending a regional groundwater management agreement that could affect water security and costs for decades.
The consent calendar is where accountability goes to die. Items get approved en masse, with no debate, no public comment, and minimal scrutiny. Politicians love it because they can vote yes on controversial items without having to defend them individually.
And taxpayers? They’re left reading skeletal meeting minutes that provide almost no information about what their elected officials actually did.
What a Responsible Council Would Have Done
A city council that actually represents taxpayers would have:
- Pulled the item from the consent calendar for individual discussion
- Provided a staff report explaining what the amendment changes and why
- Disclosed the financial implications — both immediate costs and long-term obligations
- Allowed public comment so residents could weigh in
- Debated the merits before voting
- Made the full text of the amendment available to the public
Instead, the Hayward City Council did none of that. They approved Amendment No. 1 without discussion, without disclosure, and without accountability.
Mayor Salinas and Council Members Roche, Syrop, Bonilla, Zermeño, Goldstein, and Andrews all voted yes. Not one of them asked a question. Not one of them demanded transparency.
That’s not governance. That’s a formality.
The SGMA Sword of Damocles
Here’s the uncomfortable reality: California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives the state enormous power over local water policy.
If Hayward and EBMUD fail to implement their Groundwater Sustainability Plan successfully, the state can step in and impose its own management regime. That means:
- State-appointed managers overriding local decisions
- Mandatory pumping restrictions regardless of local needs
- Fees and assessments to fund state intervention
- Loss of local control over a critical resource
So when the city amends its groundwater agreement, it’s not just negotiating with EBMUD. It’s trying to avoid state takeover.
That’s a legitimate concern. But it doesn’t justify approving amendments without public scrutiny. If anything, it makes transparency more important. Taxpayers deserve to know what their city is agreeing to and whether it’s protecting Hayward’s interests or just checking boxes to avoid state intervention.
The Bottom Line
Hayward just amended a major groundwater management agreement with East Bay Municipal Utility District. The city council approved it unanimously, without debate, without public comment, and without disclosing what the amendment actually does.
This is how important policy gets made in Hayward: behind closed doors, with minimal transparency, and zero accountability.
Groundwater is one of the city’s most valuable resources. Agreements governing its use will affect water security, development capacity, and ratepayer costs for decades. Those decisions should be made in public, with full disclosure, and robust debate.
Instead, they’re buried in the consent calendar and approved with a single vote.
Maybe Amendment No. 1 is a minor technical correction that benefits Hayward. Maybe it’s a major concession to EBMUD that will cost taxpayers millions. We don’t know. The city won’t say. And the council didn’t ask.
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Resolution 25-147 is now law. The amendment will be executed. And taxpayers will find out what they agreed to when the bills come due — or when the state steps in because the city failed to meet its obligations.
By then, the politicians who approved it will claim they had no choice. They’ll blame SGMA, or EBMUD, or the state, or drought conditions.
But the truth is simpler: they had a choice. They could have demanded transparency. They could have insisted on public debate. They could have asked hard questions before signing away Hayward’s water future.
They chose not to. And that choice will haunt Hayward for decades.
