Legal battle over water use in California county ends in settlement

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A long-simmering Northern California case over water use restrictions tinged with racial overtones ended Tuesday with a settlement.

Siskiyou County and Sheriff Jeremiah LaRue reached an agreement with the putative class over what the latter called discriminatory traffic stops and improper search and seizure methods.

The class — which includes over 1,000 people, many of whom are Asian American and live in a rural part of the county called Shasta Vista — sued in 2022. They claimed the sheriff and county used water ordinances to deprive them in an area with no public water system.

County officials said they needed the ordinances to fight illegal cannabis grows.

On Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley approved the settlement agreement between the two sides.

“… The agreement includes a stipulated injunction that largely mirrors the protections this court granted in issuing a preliminary injunction, which itself was the subject of extensive litigation,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote.

The lawsuit and settlement stem from water use ordinances passed by the county in 2020 and 2021. The county sought to increase fines linked to growing cannabis and issue property liens to obtain fines for violating those ordinances.

The suit followed, with Nunley issuing a preliminary injunction stopping the county from enforcing its ordinances. Settlement discussions continued, culminating in Tuesday’s formal agreement.

Part of that agreement includes a provision prohibiting the sheriff, county and those acting on their behalf from stopping people from transferring water to affected residents.

However, authorities can enforce the ordinances in certain circumstances. That includes when over 30 water trucks a day draw from a well, or if trucks are carrying water between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m.

“The county must in all cases issue at least one warning to a parcel owner prior to issuance of a citation to that parcel owner under this section,” the parties wrote. They add that enforcement powers don’t extend during certain emergencies, like an active fire. “Additionally, racially discriminatory enforcement is prohibited in all circumstances.”

The agreement also opens the spigot for plaintiffs to seek state approval and funding for a public water system that would give affected parcels a permanent water source. The county and sheriff agree not to give negative opinions about that goal in an official capacity.

The deal will remain effective for five years. It could last another six years under certain circumstances, like if the creation of the public water system remains ongoing. It also could extend if the state denied a permit for a water system and more time is needed for residents to make other arrangements to get water.

Both sides also agreed the defendants would pay $650,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Asked for comment, one attorney pointed to a joint statement included in the settlement agreement.

Both sides in that statement say the county will not enforce laws that curtailed water deliveries to the affected area. The agreement covers water deliveries for domestic use, not cannabis grows.

County officials said everyone deserves the opportunity to have safe, potable water in their homes. The agreement gives that chance to Shasta Vista residents.

“Like most of my neighbors, I can’t afford to drill a well on my property and for years have struggled to have a reliable supply of clean water,” said Russell Mathis, lead plaintiff, in the statement. “This agreement means that residents in my community will get the water we desperately need for bathing, caring for animals, and protecting ourselves against wildfires.”