Ranchers and the Battle Over California’s Water
Ranchers Defy State Orders Amid Drought
The land that Jim Scala and his family have been ranching for three generations is parched and brown as far as he can see. The pond where his cattle used to drink is now a mere puddle, ringed with cracked mud. In past years, water pumped from the Shasta River would have periodically flooded this land, keeping his pasture alive and the pond full. But with the river plagued by drought, the state ordered Scala and other ranchers in rural Siskiyou County to stop irrigating when the river dipped below a certain level. Faced with mounting bills from trucking in water and buying hay to replace dead pasture, and the prospect of selling half his herd, Scala and others made a bold decision: defy the state’s order.
“We said, ‘To hell with it,’” Scala said. “We’re starting the pumps.” In a single day in mid-August, the Shasta River’s flows dropped by more than half and stayed low for a week, jeopardizing the salmon and other fish that spawn there. This action prompted outrage from Klamath River tribes and alarm from California water regulators. The State Water Resources Control Board ordered the Shasta River Water Association, which serves roughly 110 farms and ranches in central Siskiyou County, to stop pumping. Fines were set to start at $500 per day, with the potential to rise to $10,000 after a 20-day waiting period or a hearing.
Environmental and Regulatory Repercussions
Jim Simondet, Klamath branch chief for NOAA’s fisheries division, condemned the actions, saying, “The unlawful diversion sets a terrible precedent that irrigators can egregiously violate state water rights and impact listed and tribal trust species.” A week later, on August 24, Scala and the other ranchers turned off the pumps. “We accomplished what we set out to do,” said Rick Lemos, a fifth-generation rancher and board member of the water association. “We got relief for the cattle that were out of water and wading out in the mud and getting stuck.”
The standoff underscored a critical issue for California water watchers: the state’s limited power to intervene quickly in urgent water conflicts, which are expected to become more frequent as droughts squeeze water supplies for ranches, farms, tribes, cities, and fish across the state. Craig Tucker, a natural resources consultant for the Karuk Tribe, highlighted the broader implications: “This is really about: can the state protect its water supplies, or is it just going to be the Wild West? Is it going to be every cowboy for himself?”
Tensions Between Local Authorities and State Regulations
Scala is the president, and Lemos sits on the board of the Shasta River Water Association, a private, non-profit water distributor that operates in Siskiyou County under the shadow of Mount Shasta. In normal years, the association pumps water from the Shasta River from April to October, sending it through a network of canals to irrigate roughly 3,400 acres. However, Siskiyou County, where locals have long chafed under Sacramento’s authority, was primed for tensions over water to escalate.
Congressman Doug LaMalfa, a Republican representing the county, echoed local sentiments, stating, “The dictatorial whims of (the) State Water Board has no authority to tell the people of Siskiyou County what to do with their property they own. This violates our constitutional guarantee against unlawful seizure. I encourage anyone to stop ‘voluntarily complying’ with government looters.” This year marks the fourth driest on record in a region where drought has tightened its grip for years. Even in 2020, the local agricultural commissioner reported increased fallowed acres and limited irrigation that reduced yields. Wildfires have ravaged rangeland and timber.
Impact on Salmon and Tribal Communities
Agriculture has also strained water in the region, warming the Shasta River and degrading its quality, according to the Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District. These changes impact key spawning and rearing grounds for fall-run Chinook salmon and threatened Coho salmon. Other fish culturally important to tribes in the region, such as steelhead and Pacific lamprey, also rely on the river. Salmon runs have been declining for decades, and few adult Coho return each year. “Fish,” Simondet said, “are not doing fine.”
The Shasta River feeds into the larger Klamath River, a small contributor to its flow but a significant producer of its fish. In Happy Camp along the Klamath River, about 75 miles east of the pumps the ranchers turned on, Karuk Tribal Council Member Arron “Troy” Hockaday has witnessed the river and its salmon populations change over his lifetime. “(If) those fish are gone, our people suffer. Those fish don’t spawn, our people suffer. We live off that — it’s our culture,” said Hockaday, a fourth-generation traditional fisherman.
Hockaday, who has been dipping handmade nets into the rapids at Somes Bar to catch salmon since childhood, worries that his grandson won’t be able to continue the tradition. “There ain’t going to be no fish for him to fish. He’s never going to learn how to catch fish and be a Karuk Tribal fisherman.” Watching salmon populations decline even as water continues to flow through irrigation canals “hurts. It hurts so bad to see that,” Hockaday said. “And then to put pain into my soul, into our family, into the river — the farmers open the floodgates on the Shasta River.”
State Water Regulations and Rancher Pushback
Last year, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted emergency regulations that allow state regulators to curtail water users in the region when summertime flows in the Shasta River drop below 50 cubic feet per second near Yreka. The aim is to protect salmon and trout species, including steelhead, fall-run Chinook, and threatened Coho salmon. But the limit is fiercely contested by area ranchers, who note that it’s higher than the average historic flows in August since 1933. The Shasta River Water Association petitioned in early August to continue diverting water to fill stock ponds for approximately 5,000 cattle plus calves and other assorted animals, according to a copy of the petition the water board shared with CalMatters. The water board said the request was still under review.
Lemos said the ranchers couldn’t afford to wait. “How long do they review it while the cows are dying of thirst?” Lemos said. “We didn’t just fly off the handle and say hey, we’re going to break the law and get into a big mess. We tried the other way first.” In a letter dated August 17, the water association notified state regulators that they planned to violate the curtailment that day. “We were in a critical situation. We have cattle out of water… We have nowhere to move them. You can’t just get them in and sell them tomorrow,” Lemos said. “So that’s why we started diverting (water).”
Future Implications and State Response
The pumps rapidly drained river water, dropping flows by more than half in a day, state officials said. “It’s an egregious and blatant disregard for the environment and for our regulations…We are really, really interested in taking some swift action because we do take this so seriously,” said Julé Rizzardo, permitting and enforcement branch manager for the water board’s division of water rights. The board is still investigating and determining whether to seek fines. It took only a day after flows began dropping for the agency to notify the water association that they had violated their curtailment and could face fines of up to $500 per day. But under state law, the ranchers had 20 days to respond and request a hearing.
Only after the 20 days are up or a hearing has occurred can the water board adopt a final cease and desist order and raise the fines to $10,000 a day. By then, fall-run Chinook salmon would have been migrating through the river. “It’s really unfortunate that we have those limitations,” Rizzardo said. Felicia Marcus, a visiting fellow at Stanford’s Water in the West program and former chair of the California water board, was more blunt: “In theory, the water board has a lot of authority to deal with illegal diversions. In practice, they have to do it blindfolded and with one hand tied behind their back because they have to jump through a series of procedural hoops before they can actually act.” She emphasized the urgent need for stronger and more streamlined regulatory measures, especially in the face of increasing climate variability and worsening drought conditions.
Balancing Agricultural Needs and Environmental Protection
The conflict on the Shasta River is a stark example of the broader challenges California faces in balancing agricultural needs with environmental protection. For many ranchers, the ability to irrigate their land is not just about maintaining livelihoods—it’s about survival. Scala and his fellow ranchers argue that they are merely trying to keep their cattle alive in an increasingly untenable situation, and they believe the state's regulations do not adequately consider their immediate needs.
On the other side, environmentalists and tribal communities stress that the health of the river ecosystem—and the salmon that depend on it—cannot be sacrificed. The salmon are not just a species of concern; they are integral to the cultural and economic fabric of the tribes living along the river. The Klamath River tribes, in particular, have spent decades fighting to restore the river and its fish populations, which are critical to their way of life.
“It’s not just a river; it’s our heart, it’s our soul,” said Nancy Burdick, a Yurok Tribal Council Member. “Without these fish, we lose a part of ourselves, and that loss ripples through our entire community.”
Looking Ahead: Possible Resolutions and Future Challenges
The standoff on the Shasta River has sparked a larger conversation about water rights, enforcement, and the future of water management in California. With climate change expected to increase the frequency and severity of droughts, conflicts like this one are likely to become more common. Experts suggest that collaborative approaches and innovative solutions will be necessary to prevent similar disputes in the future.
Water regulators are now exploring ways to strengthen their enforcement capabilities, while some ranchers have begun looking into alternative water sources or more sustainable practices to reduce their reliance on river water. However, finding a balance that satisfies both the agricultural community and environmental concerns remains a formidable challenge.
For the ranchers, the fight is far from over. As Lemos put it, “We’re not against the environment—we live in it, too. But we’re being pushed into a corner where we have to choose between our way of life and the fish. It shouldn’t be that way. There has to be a solution where we can both survive.”
Meanwhile, the state faces pressure to act swiftly and decisively in similar conflicts, with environmental groups urging tougher penalties and quicker responses to illegal water diversions. The outcome of this standoff will likely set a precedent for how California handles water disputes moving forward, especially in regions where water is increasingly scarce.
