After months of courtroom maneuvering, Yolo County and local water managers say they have a deal in the long‑simmering fight over who controls Fair Ranch’s river water. The settlement framework, announced this week, would resolve lawsuits over the state’s planned purchase of water tied to the roughly 7,500‑acre farm near Knights Landing.
Under the agreement, Reclamation District 108 would take title to Fair Ranch and operate the property while current growers finish a leaseback through 2026, with new rules intended to shield local groundwater. The arrangement is designed to cool tensions that flared after the California Department of Water Resources decided its proposed water purchase did not need full environmental review.
Deal terms and who will run Fair Ranch
According to a memorandum of understanding filed with the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency, Reclamation District 108 agreed to carry out a purchase‑and‑sale agreement for Fair Ranch, grant a leaseback to RRG Garden Properties for farming in 2026, and accept limits on how the property can be transferred in the future. The parties also committed to coordinating on operating conditions tailored to reduce impacts on groundwater and to requiring RD 108’s compliance with sustainable groundwater rules, according to Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency.
RD 108’s long track record managing levees and drainage in the Knights Landing corridor is a big part of why the district is being put in charge of Fair Ranch, as noted on its website and cited in the memorandum of understanding (Reclamation District 108).
What DWR planned
The California Department of Water Resources had proposed buying a portion of Fair Ranch’s Sacramento River settlement‑contract water, starting with a minimum of 5,000 acre‑feet and reaching up to 16,000 acre‑feet per year. The goal was to keep that water in the river from January through June to benefit fish and habitat.
DWR filed a Notice of Exemption for the Instream Flow Water Transfer Agreement on Feb. 10, 2026, arguing the deal would boost streamflow without changing how the land is used, according to CEQAnet. That proposed transfer and a related easement quickly became the flashpoint between state water managers and local agencies.
Why local leaders sued
Yolo County and the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency each filed suit in March, saying DWR’s exemption glossed over a likely spike in groundwater pumping if irrigators lost their summer surface water supply. The YSGA complaint pointed out that the Zamora–Knights Landing corridor has already seen several feet of land subsidence and warned that locking in an annual transfer could “unavoidably impact local groundwater levels,” as reported by Abridged (PBS KVIE).
The county, wary of digging itself into a deeper hole, had already put a moratorium in place last year on most new agricultural well permits in sensitive focus areas while it crafts stricter well‑permitting rules, according to Yolo County.
Legal implications and next steps
The Yolo Subbasin board signed off on the settlement unanimously last week. Under the memorandum of understanding, the lawsuits will not be dismissed until separate agreements between River Garden Farms and DWR are completed, according to Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency.
Reclamation District 108 has also filed its own Notice of Exemption, dated April 21, 2026, for the planned acquisition of roughly 7,500 acres and the associated water rights. The district describes the move as a public‑agency transfer aimed at keeping the land in agriculture and preventing development, per CEQAnet. If all the paperwork comes together, the court fight will end, but the monitoring, reporting and enforcement requirements in the memorandum will stay in place.
Why it matters locally
The settlement is an attempt to thread a tight needle: send more water down the river for salmon and other species while avoiding fresh strain on Yolo County’s already stressed aquifers that support local farms and towns.
Agencies in the county have poured time and money into groundwater recharge and other resilience projects in recent years as part of their work under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The state has documented those efforts in its regional groundwater recharge investments, according to DWR. The next few weeks and months will show whether the new paperwork, monitoring plans and enforcement measures can keep both the fish and the farmers afloat.
