The orders require an immediate stop of the use of any water from diversions.
“We’re not in an emergency drought, so all of this is bogus,” she said. “We’ve just had two good winters with plentiful rain and snowpack and yet the state is treating us though we’re in some extreme drought emergency.”
The Johnsons and other ranchers are facing a voluntary 30 percent water curtailment under the emergency regulations.
To irrigate the land they own and lease and to water their livestock, the Johnsons draw surface water from two creeks that flow into the Scott River, a tributary of the Klamath River. The creeks are both intermittent streams from snow melt in the Marble Mountains that run dry in the summer. So, by July, they must rely on groundwater.
But, in January, the water board unanimously readopted emergency regulations that curtail water rights for agriculture in the Scott and Shasta watersheds.
But, the Scott and Shasta watersheds received less precipitation than other parts of the state, according to the water board. Consequently, the Klamath River watershed remains under the emergency regulations., which limit surface-water diversions and groundwater pumping to protect threatened salmon and other fish.
Johnson said the ranchers have sent two petitions to the governor to lift the emergency regulations, but their requests have been denied.
‘Voluntary’ Plans?
The emergency regulations force ranchers and farmers to submit voluntary plans to the water board promising to reduce water use by 30 percent in the Scott River and 15 percent in Shasta River watersheds or run the risk of losing all access to water for agriculture use.Last week, when the Scott River dropped below the water board’s July minimum flow levels of 50 cubic feet of water per second, ranchers and farmers who did not have an approved or pending water-use reduction plan were forced to turn off all water for irrigation. A similar order was made in Shasta Valley on July 3.
The letters caused confusion and angst among many rural residents who aren’t using any water for agriculture but were worried they could be fined, Johnson said.
And, for those who are using water for farming, the letters caused even more anxiety, she said.
“We have neighbors who were fined thousands of dollars in 2022 because they accidentally did their reporting wrong, so it makes us all extremely nervous every time we get a formal letter from the water board requiring some kind of reporting,” she said. “It’s not like we have a friendly neighborhood water board guy we can go to for guidance. They’re all far away in Sacramento.”
For many ranchers, the 30 percent reduction is hard to quantify because they hadn’t measured their water use in the past so there is no baseline by which to compare, Johnson said.
“We had estimates but no hard numbers. The water board says that’s why they want well meters installed now,” she said.
It basically equates to a 30-percent loss in plant growth, and in some cases “total crop failure,” especially in the case of pastureland and means that some ranchers have been forced to sell 30 percent of their livestock, Johnson said.
As Johnson points out, the state water board’s “severe curtailments of groundwater use seems to be based on the assumption that the aquifer is suffering in Scott Valley, but the data show otherwise.”
Ryan Walker, president of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau, which has nearly 600 members, told The Epoch Times smaller cattle operations could be disproportionately affected because they might not have the resources to adapt and survive water restrictions year after year.
When the curtailments were first imposed, hay prices were high so it was easier for producers to absorb costs but this year it will be extremely difficult for those farmers to make money because they’ll have to cut production, he said.
Producing a significantly lower amount of hay with the same fixed costs such as mortgage, seed, fertilizer and tractor payments is “a problem,” he said.
Ranchers in Scott Valley are in an even worse position because their cattle are in constant need of feed, said Walker, who runs a 6,000-acre ranch with a cow-calf operation outside the water-restricted areas.
“They’re in a really bad spot,” he said. “If you have to curtail in late July, when normally you would irrigate all the way through October, that is a lot of feed you’ve got to find for your animals, or you’ve got to sell animals ... and then you’re eating away at the factory.”
Ranchers in Siskiyou County have had to sell “thousands and thousands” of cattle over the last four years, Walker said.
“So, it’s very much an existential threat to those operations,” he said.
They “aren’t really voluntary because you’ve got a gun to your head with curtailments, and they’re not really local because they’re being run out of Sacramento,” he said. “They’re cooperative in the sense that we’re cooperating, I guess, and they’re probably not solutions either.”
After two wet years, with snowpacks measured at 100 percent this year, Shasta Lake at full capacity, and Trinity and Whiskeytown lakes close to full, an end to the drought emergency regulations is long overdue, Walker said.
“We would like the governor to rescind his proclamation,” he said. “We raise crops for a living. We know when we’re in a drought, and we know when we’ve got water.”
Under the emergency regulations, the state doesn’t have to comply with normal due process involving the California Environment Equality Act—better known as CEQA—which requires public hearings and environmental impact reports, Walker said.
“I think the time has come and we’re owed due process like every other citizen in California,” he said.
Under California law, the water board can impose emergency flow regulations, if there is evidence of certain drought conditions or an emergency proclamation by the governor.
“The governor has got an emergency drought proclamation despite all the evidence to the contrary, and that’s not something that’s very easy to fight. That’s a political issue,” he said. “At some point, you would think that the governor’s office would be chagrined enough by the fact that every reservoir in the state is bursting full that we probably can’t sustain that drought order.”
At least through due process the state would have to account for the economic loss to farmers and ranchers and justify the benefit to fish, he said.
Water Board Response
The state water board said in an Aug. 6 email to The Epoch Times that the emergency regulations “do not deny” farmers and ranchers their rights to due process, and “there have been dozens of public hearings on this topic.”The amount of the fines is “in alignment with existing statute” set by the state legislature, the water board said.
“Letters were sent to all known water users, which could include some smaller types of wells such as domestic drinking water supplies. The state does not track groundwater use and does not have records of what types of wells are on specific parcels. Recipients must respond, but that does not mean they will be curtailed. Domestic well users can claim exemption from the curtailments,” according to the water board.
The water board said it strives to balance water needs in its decisions, which must consider agricultural, domestic and municipal supplies as well as tribal uses, water rights, and the protection of “California’s iconic species,” the email states.
Rulemaking
In July, 2021, California’s Karuk Tribe—indigenous to Humboldt and Siskiyou counties and one of the state’s largest—and the Environmental Law Foundation, an Oakland based environmental advocacy nonprofit, petitioned for “emergency rulemaking” to the state water board for minimum flow regulations in the Scott River.Then, in May, 2023, the tribe, foundation, and fisheries submitted another petition asking for permanent regulations for the river. Since then, several environmental groups have sought permanent regulations for the Shasta River.
Irrigated Acres
Each watershed represents about 30,000 irrigated acres. In Scott Valley, for example, about 30,000, or five percent, of 600,000 acres are irrigated, Walker said.Dam Removals
The Klamath River Dam Removal Project, currently in progress and which ultimately will see the demolition of four dams, has been such a “divisive” issue for decades, making it difficult to work out long-term water management solutions in the region, Walker said.The project will allow the river to flow freely and restore its salmon population, which authorities say, is important to Native American tribes and commercial and recreational fishing.
“Now that the dams are out, we’re having different conversations and that’s a good thing. We will see how that plays out,” he said.
If the dam removal doesn’t achieve fish returns and hurts fish populations, the ranchers will have to pay with even less water for their operations, Walker said.
“We’re the ones that are going to be paying the consequences of a failed dam removal, so no one is hoping for the benefits of dam removal more than landowners,” he said.
The reservoirs, which held more than 45 billion gallons in Copco and Iron Gate lakes alone, were not used for irrigation, only hydroelectricity, according to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, a nonprofit formed to oversee the dam removal project.
Even though it is about an hour’s drive from the closest former dam site, Scott Valley is part of the Klamath River watershed so ranchers and farmers there are concerned that if the fisheries don’t recover as planned, they could face even harsher water restrictions.
“That’s where it comes back to us,” Johnson said. “We know from experience that whenever there is a problem with the Klamath fishery, farming and ranching in the watershed get blamed.”
Ranchers in Scott Valley love the wildlife and open spaces, and understand they have to take care of their land, aquifers, streams or “they won’t continue to feed us, or be good habitat for anyone or anything,” she said.
“Scott Valley is our home. We could never replace it. Our roots are here—generations of roots. It’s a wonderful place to raise kids. It’s rural, it’s safe and it’s where Dave and I learned how to work hard and how to produce food that people need,” she said.
She wonders what will happen if more family-run ranches are forced out of business.
Not Enough?
American Rivers, one of several environmental groups that advocated for a free-flowing river, stated in an article posted to its website in March that the dam removals are “not enough” and is now shifting its focus to tributaries of the Klamath River, Johnson said.“They showed their cards right there. They’re absolutely coming after every drop of water they can get,” she said. “That’s what I see coming down the pike.”
Irrigated Agriculture
Craig Tucker, a natural resources policy consultant for the Karuk Tribe, told The Epoch Times that in some ways the dam removals on Klamath River are unrelated to irrigation because none of the dam reservoirs were tapped for agriculture.“That’s kind of unique on the Klamath. It’s not always the case, and I think it’s one reason why Klamath dam removals were successful because we’re not disrupting irrigated agriculture,” Tucker said.
He said the ranchers should get behind the project.
“It is in the self-interest of ranchers and farmers to support the dam removals and help restore the fish because the more fish there are the fewer regulatory burdens there will be for everyone,” he said.
