California lawmakers late Friday approved a massive increase in fines for water scofflaws after ranchers intentionally defied state orders and .
Two years ago, state officials imposed the maximum fine allowed under law 鈥� , causing outrage among tribes and conservationists. The river provides vital habitat for salmon, and California was experiencing on record.
, which is now awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 signature, would double daily fines for water rights holders who commit minor violations. Those violating curtailment orders could face fines of up to $10,000 per day 鈥� a 20-fold increase 鈥� plus $2,500 for every acre-foot of water taken. Had it been in place at the time, the Siskiyou County ranchers could have faced total fines exceeding $1.2 million.
As climate change intensifies droughts, 鈥減eople are going to be, unfortunately, put in situations where they might feel that they need to take water, regardless of what the curtailment order is,鈥� said Analise Rivero of California Trout, a conservation group and sponsor of the bill. Now, she said, 鈥渢hey will think twice.鈥�
The legislation sailed through its final votes with little controversy, which is notable given that the state鈥檚 complex, gold-rush era system governing water rights often pits farmers and other water users against environmentalists.
was introduced in 2023 after CalMatters reported extensively and It cleared the Senate with no debate, before heading back to the Assembly, which approved the amendments with a final vote tally of 65 to 5.
The goal is 鈥渢o make sure that we鈥檙e all playing by the rules 鈥� that we don鈥檛 have a tragedy of the commons, where some are taking more and others have none,鈥� , a Democrat from San Ramon who authored the bill, .
California鈥檚 powerful farm organization did not oppose the legislation after Bauer-Kahan removed provisions that would have allowed state officials to intervene more swiftly to halt 鈥渋rreparable injury鈥� to rivers, ecosystems and other water users. Opponents said those expanded powers could ensnare law-abiding water users.
With the changes, all the opposition from growers, irrigation districts, major urban water agencies and even San Francisco Mayor London Breed fell away.
The final version is what the bill should have been all along, said Alexandra Biering, the California Farm Bureau鈥檚 senior policy advocate: a strong deterrent to taking water illegally. 鈥淲e have no problem with increased penalties,鈥� she said.
The goal is 鈥渢o make sure that we鈥檙e all playing by the rules 鈥� that we don鈥檛 have a tragedy of the commons, where some are taking more and others have none.鈥�聽Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
California and regulators have long bemoaned the state鈥檚 limited powers to police its water rights system, which establishes priority among users of finite supply of water from rivers and streams.
State officials say a to monitor streams for illegal diversions and unclear information about who has rights to the water complicate enforcement.
鈥淜nowing who鈥檚 allowed to take what and how much, and trying to administer that, can be very difficult,鈥� said Yvonne West, director of the water board鈥檚 office of enforcement. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time consuming. It is usually very investigative and labor intensive, and there are some ambiguities in the law that we can spend a lot of time arguing over.鈥�
The bill aims to address some of the enforcement gaps laid bare in the Shasta Valley two years ago. With thirsty cattle, drying stock ponds and bills from buying water and hay mounting, a rural water association serving about 80 farmers and ranchers bucked state curtailment orders meant to protect flows in the Shasta River.
鈥淲e said, 鈥楾o hell with it,鈥欌�� , told CalMatters in August 2022. 鈥淲e鈥檙e starting the pumps.鈥�
Flows in the river dropped for about a week 鈥� plummeting , which wildlife officials and Tribes feared would jeopardize salmon in the Shasta River and the bigger Klamath River that it feeds. The water board , then of divided among about 80 ranchers.
For tribes and conservationists, the fine didn鈥檛 fit the crime. 鈥淲e鈥檙e trying to protect the culture and the livelihood of people downstream,鈥� , vice chairman of the Karuk Tribal Council, . 鈥淭he salmon is a big part of our culture and our ceremonies, it鈥檚 not just a fish that swims up the river.鈥�
Only if the violation had continued after a finalized cease and desist order 鈥� which requires a 20-day waiting period and the opportunity for a hearing 鈥� could the board have raised the fines to $10,000 a day. By then, the pumps had long been turned off.
One of the ranchers told CalMatters , weighing the threat to his cattle and the expenses of ranching without enough water, 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�
In California鈥檚 far north, some farmers and ranchers relying on the Shasta River and the neighboring Scott River for irrigating crops under . The rules are aimed at protecting their imperiled fish, such as salmon.
Those restrictions on water pumping are a bigger concern than the increased fines, said Siskiyou County Farm Bureau President . 鈥淲hether it鈥檚 $500 or $10,000, it鈥檚 the underlying curtailment that鈥檚 grossly unfair. The penalty is simply something that goes along with it,鈥� Walker said.
The growers and ranchers need the river鈥檚 water for irrigation of crops during a critical time in the season, he said. 鈥淚t really could have made the difference between a profitable and nonprofitable year.鈥�
The bill represents the last of a trio of bills that emerged after the most recent drought tackling California鈥檚 water priority system One clarifying the state鈥檚 authority to was approved, while , which would have from rivers and streams, stalled.
California鈥檚 water watchers are celebrating the cooperation that smoothed the passage of Bauer-Kahan鈥檚 bill. But they say more needs to be done to bolster policing of the state鈥檚 most precious resource.
鈥淗istory has shown that the board鈥檚 current tools are not sufficient,鈥� said , a professor at the University of the Pacific鈥檚 McGeorge School of Law. 鈥淏ut I鈥檓 very encouraged by the water users and the environmental interests coming together and hope that they can build on that relationship in future.鈥�