
A new fear for cannabis growers: Water rules drying up their dreams
May 18—BELEN — Kneeling among rows of dead marijuana plants, Pamela Craddock shared a grim look with her husband. They decided this year to let their plants die and call it quits after years of trying to make a living in the industry.
The issue? Water rights.
The Craddocks entered the cannabis industry as soon as the state legalized it recreationally in 2021, and with zero debt. They are leaving it with $40,000 in loans, opting to abandon the practice rather than scrounging around for thousands of more dollars — at the least — to buy water rights for the farm.
A recent policy shift made by state cannabis regulators, an effort to prevent illegal water practices, is largely barring growers from using water hauling as a primary water source for the farms. Many smaller, rural operators that have hauled water for years are left in tough spots, either unable to afford expensive water rights or unable to secure the rights due to location.
Water rights have a long and complicated history in New Mexico, dating back centuries to traditional water practices and conflicts among Indigenous and Spanish communities. Fast forward to the present, and New Mexico is locked in a yearslong legal battle with neighboring states Colorado and Texas over Rio Grande water.
It's also a time when the Southwest faces pressure to use water more efficiently in agriculture amid water scarcity. Nearly all of New Mexico is abnormally dry, including 40% of the state sitting with extreme drought, according to the National Integrated Drought Information System.
The policy change
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham in 2021 convened a special session to legalize recreational cannabis usage. A lengthy set of rules followed, including the creation of the Cannabis Control Division, or CCD, within the state's Regulation and Licensing Department. The CCD was tasked with enforcing rules and regulations on cannabis farms, including their water usage.
So the CCD turned to the Office of the State Engineer, which has authority over surface and groundwater, for advice, said John Romero, OSE water rights division director. Immediately, he said, OSE recommended against allowing water hauling — transporting water from one location to another — because of common illegal operations, like stealing water.
"Water rights are complicated here in New Mexico," he said. "Some people think just because they own land and a river passes by or a ditch or an acequia, that they automatically have water rights."
But CCD allowed the practice, and operations began rolling in 2022. The CCD declined an interview with the Journal. RLD spokesperson Andrea Brown provided a statement affirming the cannabis division's commitment to "striking a balance between responsible, compliant water use and ensuring that participation in the legal cannabis industry remains accessible and equitable."
Eventually, Romero said, the CCD and OSE discovered that companies weren't using appropriate water sources, pushing the two agencies to collaborate on changing water policies.
The joint effort resulted in prohibiting water hauling, save for operators working with long-term partners like municipalities, and requiring water rights instead. But water rights can cost thousands of dollars an acre-foot, depending on factors like location and water type, according to Romero.
The state is also allowing growers to request a temporary exemption to the water-hauling ban while they search for new sources of water.
"We're not just cutting them off because that's not right. We don't want to put people out of business," Romero said.
In March, the CCD notified operators about the new rules, according to the division. So far, about 75 growers dependent on water hauling have approached the OSE, Romero said, though more could come in as renewal deadlines approach — which happens on a rolling basis, depending on when farms started operating.
Growing pains, or flipping the script?
When Craddock found out a couple of months ago she needed to acquire water rights, she faced a tough decision: start planting now and look for water rights, or let her 200 marijuana plants die. But she couldn't afford water rights.
Her half-acre farm is barren now. Only a few brittle stems remain upright, scattered among a growing dominance of invasive species that now blanket the once-thriving cannabis landscape.
"If we were able to have water this season, you would be standing in 200 little plants," said Craddock, who also works as a substitute teacher. The Craddocks have until August, when their license expires, to sell the 30 pounds of cannabis flower they have remaining.
"It's sad. I love them," said Craddock, who hopes one day to return to the industry. "I have pictures of me when I'm first planting them, all barefoot with my feet in the ground and cleaning all the leaves off."
Arin Goold, owner of Albuquerque cannabis shop Mama and the Girls and a farm in Estancia, believes many other smaller, rural farms' operations will also shutter. Goold herself is trying to sort out with the state if she's allowed to haul from Entranosa Water Association, which Romero said is acceptable because it's a long-term planning entity.
The price tag of water rights alone will scare off farms, Goold said.
"It has massive, sweeping implications," she said.
Three dozen miles east of the Arizona border sits another mom-and-pop cannabis grow, Mr. B's Frosty Flower, in Ramah. Like Goold, owner Matthew Brown obtained a yearlong variance to the water hauling rule while he searches for water rights.
"This is my dream," he said. "And that's why all of this was so discouraging. It felt like I was going to lose my dream."
He moved to New Mexico from Texas in 2017 with his wife solely to get into the cannabis industry, eagerly awaiting recreational legalization in the state so they could start in what he believed would be a fresh, non-saturated market. They bought a house, with room for a farm, on land tucked between three tribes — the Navajo Nation, Acoma Pueblo and Zuni Pueblo.
After the legalization, Brown obtained a license and set up a farm with a rainwater catchment system that today holds about 11,000 gallons of water. Brown said he's never had to use any other water source.
But OSE doesn't consider water catchment a primary water source, so the Browns have a contract signed with a water hauler to appease state regulations. Now, with water hauling no longer an option, Brown is working to find water rights, but the surrounding tribes are making it difficult to find any usable land.
"If they (the state) weren't going to allow this, they should have just not given me a license to begin with, and we wouldn't have bothered with it," Brown said. "But to be three years in and flip the script on us a little bit, it was devastating."
He added, "The funny thing is, we have to fight for this water — we'll never use it."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at


CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.

Associated Press
29 minutes ago
- Associated Press
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know
The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. A look at key numbers associated with the case: 389,700 Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments 101,935 Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. 357 Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. $2.8 billion Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. 95% Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in the power conferences. $20.5 million The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. 153 NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. $600 All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. $20 billion The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. $10 billion The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. $475 million Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorneys are claiming. ___ AP college sports: