Note 11 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 1 1 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company leases equipment and office facilities under operating leases that expire through April 2019. Aggregate rental expense under all operating leases was approximately $157,000, $207,000 and $202,000 in the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. At December 31, 2016, the future minimum rental commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases totaled $491,000. In the normal course of its agricultural operations, the Company handles, stores, transports and dispenses products identified as hazardous materials. Regulatory agencies periodically conduct inspections and, currently, there are no pending claims with respect to hazardous materials. The Company entered into a Services and Exclusivity Agreement with Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”) on November 2009. The agreement provides that the Company will contract exclusively with Layne for certain water related services, including drilling of boreholes, drilling of monitoring wells, completion of test wells, completion of production wells, and completion of aquifer, storage and recovery wells. In exchange for the Services and Exclusivity Agreement, Layne has agreed to forego $923,000 for work performed. This amount continues to be recorded as an other long-term liability as of December 31, 2016, and will be credited toward future work performed during the construction phase of the Water Project. Pursuant to cost-sharing agreements that have been entered into by participants in the Company’s Water Project, $750,000 in funds has offset costs incurred in the environmental analysis of the Water Project. These funds may either be reimbursed or credited to participants participation in the Water Project and, accordingly, are fully reflected as deferred revenue as of December 31, 2016. 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, was purportedly brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleged 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 sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believed that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit were 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. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. In the settlement, the Company made no admission of liability or wrongdoing and did not concede the validity of any of the allegations or legal claims made in the litigation. On February 8, 2017, the Court issued its Order and Final Judgement dismissing the federal class action and finalizing the settlement. This matter is now closed. A cash settlement will be paid in accordance with the Company’s insurance policy and not from its cash resources. 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 the Superior Court of 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 lawsuit is without merit. Notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and on January 25, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement and approving for dissemination the Notice of Derivative Settlement (the “Notice”) to the Company’s current shareholders. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Superior Court of California. In the settlement, the Company makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing and does not concede the validity of any of the allegations or legal claims made in the litigation. Subject to final approval of the settlement by the Superior Court, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiffs and a dismissal of the Derivative Action with prejudice, the Company has agreed to implement certain corporate governance reforms, and pay certain plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses. The cash portion of the settlement will be paid in accordance with the Company’s corporate insurance policy and not from its cash resources. 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

– COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases equipment and office facilities under operating leases that expire through

April

2019.

Aggregate rental expense under all operating leases was approximately

$157,000,

$207,000

and

$202,000

in the years ended

December

31,

2016,

2015

and

2014,

respectively. At

December

31,

2016,

the future minimum rental commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases totaled

$491,000.

In the normal course of its agricultural operations, the Company handles, stores, transports and dispenses products identified as hazardous materials. Regulatory agencies periodically conduct inspections and, currently, there are no pending claims with respect to hazardous materials.

The Company entered into a Services and Exclusivity Agreement with Layne Christensen Company (“Layne”) on

November

2009.

The agreement provides that the Company will contract exclusively with Layne for certain water related services, including drilling of boreholes, drilling of monitoring wells, completion of test wells, completion of production wells, and completion of aquifer, storage and recovery wells. In exchange for the Services and Exclusivity Agreement, Layne has agreed to forego

$923,000

for work performed. This amount continues to be recorded as an other long-term liability as of

December

31,

2016,

and will be credited toward future work performed during the construction phase of the Water Project.

Pursuant to cost-sharing agreements that have been entered into by participants in the Company’s Water Project,

$750,000

in funds has offset costs incurred in the environmental analysis of the Water Project. These funds

may

either be reimbursed or credited to participants participation in the Water Project and, accordingly, are fully reflected as deferred revenue as of

December

31,

2016.

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

promulgated thereunder. The complaint, was purportedly brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleged 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 sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believed that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit were baseless and without merit. On

December

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

2016.

May

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. On

September

30,

2016,

the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. In the settlement, the Company made no admission of liability or wrongdoing and did not concede the validity of any of the allegations or legal claims made in the litigation.

February

2017,

the Court issued its Order and Final Judgement dismissing the federal class action and finalizing the settlement. This matter is now closed. A cash settlement will be paid in accordance with the Company’s insurance policy and not from its cash resources.

February

2016,

a shareholder derivative lawsuit, entitled

Herman Boschken v. Keith Brackpool et. Al.

, was filed against certain Cadiz directors and officers (“Derivative Defendants”) in the Superior Court of 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 lawsuit is without merit.

Notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and on

January

25,

2017,

the Superior Court entered an order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement and approving for dissemination the Notice of Derivative Settlement (the “Notice”) to the Company’s current shareholders. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the Superior Court of California. In the settlement, the Company makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing and does not concede the validity of any of the allegations or legal claims made in the litigation.

Subject to final approval of the settlement by the Superior Court, and in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiffs and a dismissal of the Derivative Action with prejudice, the Company has agreed to implement certain corporate governance reforms, and pay certain plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses. The cash portion of the settlement will be paid in accordance with the Company’s corporate insurance policy and not from its cash resources.

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.