California鈥檚 water officials on Siskiyou County ranchers for violating orders to cut back their water use .
State officials and the ranchers agree: A $4,000 fine isn鈥檛 much of a deterrent to prevent illegal water diversions during California鈥檚 droughts. The proposed fine would amount to about $50 per rancher.
A rural water association serving about 80 ranchers and farmers 鈥� facing mounting costs from hauling water and purchasing hay to replace dried out pasture 鈥� to divert water from the Shasta River. State and federal officials said the pumping, which an emergency state order, threatened the river鈥檚 water quality and its salmon and other rare species.
Rick Lemos, a fifth generation rancher and board member of the Shasta River Water Association, said violating the drought order 鈥渨as the cheapest way I could have got by 鈥� When you鈥檙e to a point where you have no other choice, you do what you have to do.鈥� He said the alternatives 鈥渨ould have cost us, collectively, a lot more.鈥�
The penalty 鈥� $500 per day for eight days of pumping 鈥� is the maximum amount the State Water Resources Control Board鈥檚 enforcers can seek from the group of Siskiyou County ranchers under the state鈥檚 water code. The proposed fine requires a 20-day waiting period or a hearing before it is final.
The small amount and the long delay underscore the limited powers that the state鈥檚 water cops have to speedily intervene in conflicts over diversions they have declared illegal.
鈥淭hey obviously don鈥檛 have much enforcement power, because they showed up and told us, 鈥楽hut your pumps off right now.鈥� And we said no,鈥� said Lemos. 鈥淵ou would think they鈥檇 get an injunction and shut the pumps off, wouldn鈥檛 they?鈥�
Jul茅 Rizzardo, the water board鈥檚 assistant deputy director of permitting and enforcement for the division of water rights, said the agency鈥檚 powers are limited.
鈥淯nfortunately, there are circumstances such as this where the economic gains that folks can get by violating curtailment orders are greater than the potential penalties available to us,鈥� Rizzardo said.
Karuk Tribal Council Member Arron 鈥淭roy鈥� Hockaday was disappointed by the fine.
鈥淭he punishment doesn鈥檛 fit the crime鈥� We鈥檙e fighting for the fish. The fish are our life,鈥� Hockaday said.
The penalty, he says, sends a message: 鈥淪iskiyou County does not have to listen to what you guys have to say 鈥� we鈥檙e gonna do what we want. And nothing鈥檚 gonna happen to us.鈥�
In addition, the ranchers could face fines of $10,000 a day for future violations.
Under the state鈥檚 water code, fines can be larger than $500 a day only after the water board finalizes a cease and desist order, which requires a 20-day waiting period or a hearing. In the case of the Siskiyou County ranchers, Lemos and his neighbors shut their pumps off almost three weeks before the penalty would have increased to $10,000 a day.
鈥淲e knew that was coming. That鈥檚 why we pumped the water before it happened,鈥� Lemos said.
Jim Scala, a third-generation rancher who is president of the Shasta River Water Association鈥檚 board of directors, said he hopes the association agrees to not pay the fine and fight it instead.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to pay them a dime. I want to take them to court,鈥� Scala said. 鈥淏ecause if we pay them $4,000 or $10,000, that鈥檚 like admitting that we were in the wrong.鈥�
The fight began simmering in August 2021, when the water board adopted emergency regulations that allow curtailments of water pumping when flows dip below a certain level to protect the Shasta River鈥檚 salmon.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to pay them a dime. I want to take them to court.鈥�SISKIYOU COUNTY RANCHER JIM SCALA
Facing dry conditions and dwindling flows, the state ramped up curtailments in the spring and summer of 2022. In early August, the Shasta River Water Association petitioned the board to continue diverting water to fill stock ponds.
But before the board had responded, the ranchers notified state water officials in an Aug. 17 letter that they planned to violate the curtailment that day.
The river鈥檚 flows dropped by nearly two-thirds and stayed there for a week until the farmers and ranchers turned the pumps back off 鈥� a 鈥減recipitous drop鈥� that state officials said could jeopardize the river鈥檚 fish.
The state agency said that it recommends the maximum allowable fine due to the 鈥渟ignificant volume diverted in a short period of time, 鈥� the impacts to the watershed, the sensitive timing of this violation鈥� before salmon migration, and the continued pumping even after a violation notice and a draft cease and desist order were sent.
鈥淭he punishment doesn鈥檛 fit the crime鈥� We鈥檙e fighting for the fish. The fish are our life.鈥�ARRON 鈥淭ROY鈥� HOCKADAY, KARUK TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER
The river empties into the larger Klamath and is home to key spawning and rearing grounds for and . The water board鈥檚 notice Friday said that that could 鈥渆xacerbate negative water quality issues鈥� and 鈥渓imit fish mobility and survival.鈥�
鈥淭his action has direct impacts on more senior water right holders and sensitive fisheries that the Emergency Regulation intends to protect,鈥� the notice said.
Such skirmishes could flare more often as climate change brings more severe and frequent droughts to the state. But experts warn that the state鈥檚 powers don鈥檛 match the urgency of stopping illicit water use.
鈥淭he system still allows one rogue user to decide to pay a fine rather than comply with the law,鈥� said , a law professor at the University of the Pacific鈥檚 McGeorge School of Law. 鈥淐alifornia is a world-class economy with world-class natural resources. The state agency charged with protecting its water resources should be given world-class tools.鈥�
Rizzardo said the state doesn鈥檛 have the resources or data necessary to police 40,000 water rights holders, particularly during a severe drought.
鈥淲e empathize. We recognize the hardships. We have been out in the field, to try to understand the situation more holistically,鈥� Rizzardo said. 鈥淏ut we also aren鈥檛 going to ignore the blatant violations.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.