Note 7 - Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 7 – CONTINGENCIES On April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al. , No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers (“Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purporting to assert claims for violation of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company’s public disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the “Water Project”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit. On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016. Following court-mandated mediation discussions in April 2016, and notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and filed a notice of settlement with the Court on May 6, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and supplemented such motion on July 14, 2016 at the request of the Court. No further action has been taken in the case to date. Any potential losses in the future related to this lawsuit will be covered by an insurance policy. On February 6, 2016, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, entitled Herman Boschken v. Keith Brackpool et. al. , was filed against certain Cadiz directors and officers (“Derivative Defendants”) in State of California County of Los Angeles Superior Court purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Derivative Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. This complaint was filed in the wake of Van Wingerden v. Cadiz , Case No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM (C.D.C.A. Apr. 24, 2015), described above, and mirrors many of its factual allegations. Among other things, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and certain changes to corporate governance policies. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the lawsuit are baseless and without merit. Pursuant to a Joint Stipulation and Order agreed to by the parties and entered by the Court on April 22, 2016, this Derivative Case is currently stayed pending the dismissal, with prejudice, of the Van Wingerden case described above. No further action has been taken in this case to date. No case related activity has yet occurred before the Court. While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, the Company will evaluate this matter on an ongoing basis and record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many situations, including the purported class action, in which such matters are being contested, the outcome is not predictable and any potential loss is not estimable. There are no other material legal proceedings pending to which the Company is a party or of which any of the Company’s property is the subject.

NOTE

– CONTINGENCIES

On April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled

Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al.

, No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers (“Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purporting to assert claims for violation of §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company’s public disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the “Water Project”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit. On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016. Following court-mandated mediation discussions in April 2016, and notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and filed a notice of settlement with the Court on May 6, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and supplemented such motion on July 14, 2016 at the request of the Court. No further action has been taken in the case to date.

Any potential losses in the future related to this lawsuit will be covered by an insurance policy.

On February 6, 2016, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, entitled

Herman Boschken v. Keith Brackpool et. al.

, was filed against certain Cadiz directors and officers (“Derivative Defendants”) in State of California County of Los Angeles Superior Court purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Derivative Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. This complaint was filed in the wake of

Van Wingerden v. Cadiz

, Case No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM (C.D.C.A. Apr. 24, 2015), described above, and mirrors many of its factual allegations. Among other things, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and certain changes to corporate governance policies. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the lawsuit are baseless and without merit. Pursuant to a Joint Stipulation and Order agreed to by the parties and entered by the Court on April 22, 2016, this Derivative Case is currently stayed pending the dismissal, with prejudice, of the Van Wingerden case described above. No further action has been taken in this case to date. No case related activity has yet occurred before the Court.

While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, the Company will evaluate this matter on an ongoing basis and record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many situations, including the purported class action, in which such matters are being contested, the outcome is not predictable and any potential loss is not estimable.

There are no other material legal proceedings pending to which the Company is a party or of which any of the Company’s property is the subject.