This story was initially printed by Grist. You can subscribe to its weekly newsletter here.

It’s not simple implementing water laws within the West. Just ask the officers in California who’ve been attempting for nearly a decade to penalize a person who took water from the river system that feeds San Francisco and bottled it on the market to shops like Starbucks.

It seems like a tall story, nevertheless it’s illustrative of simply how exhausting it’s to cease scofflaws from utilizing water the remainder of the state wants throughout a water disaster.

In 2015, on the peak of a extreme drought, California’s state water company obtained a collection of complaints about water theft on a small tributary of the Tuolumne River, the supply of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir that provides most of San Francisco’s water.

G. Scott Fahey, the proprietor of a water bottling firm referred to as Sugar Pine Spring Water, was siphoning water from the spring and loading it on vans, the complainants stated. Fahey’s firm had been tapping the spring for greater than a decade—he equipped water to an organization named on Starbucks’s checklist of water bottle suppliers on the time—however the state had imposed drought restrictions on the Tuolumne that yr, which barred Fahey from utilizing it.

The state issued a cease-and-desist order to Fahey inside weeks, and some months later investigators started gathering info to prosecute him. It regarded like a slam-dunk case. In the tip, although, it could take the state greater than six years to finish the prosecution—lengthy sufficient for the 2015 drought to finish and one other drought to start. During that point Fahey would attraction the state’s preliminary resolution and sue the state for wrongful prosecution, dragging the case out for years in an effort to keep away from paying $215,000 in damages.

In the autumn of final yr, simply because the state was nearing the tip of the prosecution, officers obtained one other grievance about Fahey—in accordance with the complainant, he was stealing water from the identical river once more, undeterred by the complete power of California’s prosecution.

Across the West, main water customers are topic to strict laws that govern how and once they can draw water from rivers and streams. These rights differ from state to state, however the normal precept is at all times the identical: older water customers have stronger rights than newer customers, and the state has the authority to curtail water utilization throughout drought intervals. (Thanks to the colonial foundations of water regulation, tribal water rights date from the creation of tribal reservations, not from when a tribe began utilizing a water supply. In principle these rights are senior to these of personal water customers, however in follow many tribes face steep limitations to realizing these rights.)

But implementing these guidelines is simpler stated than accomplished. Over the previous decade, as extra states have clamped down on water utilization, water managers throughout the west have discovered themselves struggling to observe all potential violations, and to implement water rights regulation that they’ve by no means had to make use of earlier than. Even a big and well-funded state like California can’t preserve observe of all unlawful water diversions, and attorneys typically have bother prosecuting even these violations they do establish. Even when the state has an hermetic case, its enforcement powers are restricted, and the punishments it might probably mete out typically aren’t extreme sufficient to discourage potential violators.

That implies that many water customers who violate drought restrictions might get off with only a slap on the wrist, if the state notices them in any respect. This makes it tough or not possible to guard weak waterways from being overtapped.

“Their capacity is minuscule compared to what they’re expected to do, and I think the water rights unit has been systematically underfunded from day one,” stated Felicia Marcus, the previous chair of California’s State Water Resources Control Board, also referred to as the “Water Board,” which regulates water within the state.

The first problem the state faces is measuring water withdrawals within the first place. An investigation from the Sacramento Bee discovered that the state has only a thousand working water gauges to observe virtually 200,000 miles of river, and moreover discovered that simply 11 p.c of water customers adjust to a 2015 regulation that requires them to report their water utilization. Without an correct sense of who’s utilizing what, it’s exhausting to know the place to look.

But the larger drawback for the Water Board is that its enforcement workers is just too small to implement even the portion of water violations that it does find yourself detecting. The Water Board’s enforcement division has solely 50 everlasting workers members, and simply three are devoted to implementing water rights violations. The division receives lots of of complaints a yr, however it might probably solely examine a number of of them, and solely 10 p.c of obtained complaints result in any enforcement motion.

Representatives for the Water Board argue that is partially as a result of the division receives a excessive quantity of repeat complaints, but in addition acknowledge that the state can’t examine every part.

“Just like the IRS doesn’t audit every single taxpayer, we do not conduct a detailed enforcement investigation into tens of thousands of water rights,” stated Ailene Voisin, a spokesperson for the Water Board. “We use our limited resources and our enforcement discretion to conduct investigations where circumstances warrant it.”

During drought intervals, investigators give attention to monitoring streams the place the state has issued restrictions, however even then it’s tough for them to examine on greater than a fraction of all of the water customers underneath restriction.

Still, some divisions have extra sources than others. Of the fourteen cease-and-desist orders the state has issued for the reason that final drought, seven have been issued to hashish growers. That’s as a result of the hashish enforcement unit has a bulkier funds, in addition to 5 devoted staff, in comparison with three for all different rights violations. When California voters accredited a leisure marijuana referendum in 2016, the state authorities plowed further funds into regulating the newly authorized pot market. In reality, lots of the water enforcement actions in opposition to producers outcome from unrelated drug busts in opposition to unlawful develop operations.

Even when the state is aware of who’s breaking the foundations, bringing offenders to heel might be tough. That’s largely as a result of the state’s water rights system is giant and multifaceted, and officers have by no means comprehensively quantified and sorted all of the totally different sorts of rights within the state. This has made it tough to implement the letter of the regulation throughout drought intervals.

The Fahey case was a textbook instance. Investigators discovered Fahey had diverted about 25 acre-feet of water illegally—as a lot as 25 to 50 households use in a yr, however not an infinite quantity within the grand scheme of issues. State officers managed to schedule a listening to date for Fahey inside a number of months of getting the primary complaints. But due to the complexities of the water rights system, and the historic quirks of Fahey’s particular water rights, it took one other three years for the executive board to reach a decision ordering Fahey to pay the state again for his theft within the type of both water or money. The details of Fahey’s diversion have been clear, however the advanced nature of the water rights system made it tough to reach at a swift resolution, and even after the choice got here down, Fahey appealed for a reconsideration of his case. It took till March of this year for the board to refuse his request, once more due to the authorized complexities concerned. Now Fahey is suing the state water board over its resolution, which is able to result in one more trial, this one in civil courtroom.

This course of took so lengthy that it might have allowed Fahey to violate the regulation once more. In October of final yr, the state obtained one other grievance that Fahey was diverting it illegally. Records obtained by Grist present {that a} complainant stated they “witnessed water trucks going and coming from [the] Sugar Pine facility.”

“Have been following his case through the water board,” the nameless complainant wrote, “and last [I]looked, he had been ordered to cease and desist.”

In principle, state officers ought to have investigated the grievance, however Fahey was in the midst of petitioning for reconsideration, and the state couldn’t implement its cease-and-desist order whereas his case was in authorized limbo. State officers informed Grist they determined to not examine the brand new grievance in opposition to Fahey in order to keep away from derailing the continued prosecution from the final drought. The state’s powers have been so restricted, and the enforcement course of was so time-consuming, that the state couldn’t cease Fahey from violating drought restrictions, even after it had caught and prosecuted him for doing so. (Starbucks stopped sourcing spring water from California a number of months after the case started. Fahey couldn’t be reached for remark.)

“California, which prides itself on being ahead of other states on a lot of issues of climate change and water quality, is way behind when it comes to the water rights system,” stated Marcus. “Having tried to implement it during that last drought, it’s very difficult to do. They don’t have enough staff to be able to manage a wieldy system, let alone an unwieldy system.”

The limitations of the state’s enforcement energy have been on show once more this yr throughout a battle between ranchers and indigenous tribes over a weak river within the northern a part of the state.

This previous summer season, the Water Board imposed drought restrictions on the Shasta River, a winding mountain waterway close to the Oregon border. The state has conflicting tasks on the Shasta: it should launch some water from the river each summer season to irrigate farms and ranches in close by valleys, nevertheless it additionally has to carry again sufficient water within the mountains to guard weak salmon populations. In drought instances, the salmon are purported to take precedence.

This summer season, the ranchers upset that stability. After the state imposed the curtailment on the Shasta, the irrigated fields in close by valleys began to dry up, jeopardizing the well being of crops and cattle. A bunch of ranchers determined to violate the order on purpose, and wrote a letter to the state asserting their intentions to start out diverting water in violation of the curtailment. They turned on their spigots and drained water from the river, filling up the ponds and fields on their property. Within hours, the water stage on the river’s fundamental gauge had dropped precipitously, and it continued to drop over the approaching days, throwing the survival of the salmon into jeopardy.

Leaders from the state-recognized Karuk tribe of Indigenous folks, who’re the stewards of the mountain salmon, pleaded with the state to intervene and cease the ranchers’ violation of water regulation. As with Fahey, the state issued a cease-and-desist order virtually without delay, however the order was toothless. For the primary twenty days after an order is issued, the state can solely impose fines of round $500 a day, which the ranchers have been greater than able to paying. A couple of days after they turned on the water, the ranchers turned it off, claiming victory.

The case was emblematic of the shortcomings Marcus identifies. Even when there was clear proof of wrongdoing, the state didn’t have a sufficiently big “stick” to implement the letter of the regulation. The Shasta case set a disturbing precedent for future drought years: if there’s no actual punishment for violating water rights, why shouldn’t everybody simply take what they need?

The ranchers appeared to grasp this too.

“At $500 a day, it would probably be worth it, I’ll be quite honest,” one of many ranching affiliation leaders told CalMatters in August when requested about potential fines from the violation. “It’d probably be more than affordable.”

A couple of months later, in November, the state hit the ranchers with a advantageous of $4000, or about $50 per rancher. It was the utmost allowable advantageous.