SACRAMENTO (CN) - The California Attorney General's office backtracked Tuesday, surprising senior water rights holders by saying in court that the curtailment notices they received were merely advisory and not compulsory.
The turnaround happened in San Joaquin County Superior Court during a hearing in Banta Carbona Irrigation District's challenge of curtailment notices the State Water Resources Control Board issued to 114 senior rights holders in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region on June 12.
The Banta Carbona Irrigation District is south of Tracy in San Joaquin County, in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley. California produces more than one-eighth of the nation's agricultural revenue, and the valley, known as California's Breadbasket, produces most of the state's output.
The notices directed certain owners of water rights dating back to 1903 to immediately stop diverting water and threatened daily $1,000 fines plus $2,500 per acre-foot of water drawn if they did not comply. An acre-foot of water is enough to supply approximately two homes for a year.
Several water districts responded by suing the water board, claiming the state does not have the right to restrict the senior water rights holders' water use.
In court documents rebuffing the lawsuit brought by Banta Carbona, state officials seemed to change their stance by characterizing the curtailment notices as "courtesy notices" that were "advisory" only.
Water managers said that hardly seemed to be the case.
South San Joaquin Irrigation District General Manager Jeff Shields said the notices told rights holders they had seven days to sign a compliance statement under penalty of perjury.
"That doesn't sound like a general courtesy notice. That sounds like an order," he told Courthouse News.
Steve Knell, general manager of Oakdale Irrigation District, said the state's change of position surprised everyone.
"They basically said, 'I don't know why you're all upset, these are just advisory notices, they're not enforceable, they are in no way intended to make folks do anything.' There's a lot of confusion right now," Knell told Courthouse News.
Water board spokesman Tim Moran said there appears to be "some confusion" about the curtailment notices.
"A curtailment notice, provided by the State Water Board's Division of Water Rights, lets water right holders receiving it know that if diversions are not stopped pursuant to those rights, the water right holder may be subject to enforcement for an unauthorized diversion of water," he said. "This notice is not an order. An enforceable order would follow an evidentiary hearing, if requested by the diverter, at which the State Water Board would determine whether an unauthorized diversion or threat of unauthorized diversion was occurring."
The water board is in the field to determine whether unauthorized diversions are actually taking place, he said.
This is just the second time in history that the state has sought to curtail water rights of farmers and agencies whose claims date back before 1914. They have historically been protected by their longstanding water rights.
Shields said the state's curtailment notices violated due process.