Officials could use the model to determine where and when groundwater pumping most threatens the canal. The state could then manipulate surface water delivery in those areas to prevent groundwater pumping.
Another option might be to stop farming in threatened areas.
These two uses of the groundwater model couldn't be much different. The first, sends additional surface water to those who have overdrafted groundwater the most (moral hazard?); whereas the second would stop farming in the same areas. Each strategy would have costs/benefits and I don't know which would be more efficient; but like most of these issues the political battle will be about how those costs and benefits are distributed.