Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company leases equipment and office facilities under operating leases that expire through January 2019. Aggregate rental expense under all operating leases was approximately $207,000, $202,000 and $219,000 in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. At December 31, 2015, the future minimum rental commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases totaled $648,000 due during the year ending December 31, 2019. 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, 2015, 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, 2015. In California, third parties have the ability to challenge California Environmental Quality Act approvals in State Court, and, in 2012, the Company was named as a real-party-in-interest in nine lawsuits challenging the various Water Project approvals granted by the Santa Margarita Water District (“SMWD”) and San Bernardino County (the “County”). In 2013, three cases were dismissed or otherwise settled. Trial in the six remaining cases, which were brought by two petitioners, began in December 2013 and concluded in February 2014. In September 2014, the Orange County Superior Court (the “Court”) issued final signed judgments (“Judgments”) formally denying all claims brought in the six lawsuits. The Judgments upheld the environmental review and approvals of the Water Project and also awarded costs to SMWD, the County, Cadiz and Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company as the prevailing parties in the cases. The Judgments served as the Court’s final actions in the six cases. During the fourth quarter of 2014, the petitioners filed independent appeals of the six Judgments in the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Since that time, the appeals cases have been fully briefed, including the filing of 11 Amicus Curiae “Friend of the Court” briefs in support of the Project’s approvals by a broad cross section of government, business and public interest groups. Oral argument in these outstanding cases has been scheduled by the Appeals Court for late March 2016. The Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any of the proceedings. The appeals process is not projected to have any impact on the Company’s ongoing implementation and pre-construction activities for the Water Project. 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 Defendants have made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospectus. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the action. On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016. The Judge has not yet issued a ruling and the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding. 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 lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the action. No case related activity has yet occurred before the Court. While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit and the shareholder derivative lawsuit are without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, the Company will evaluate these matters on an ongoing basis and record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a 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 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases equipment and office facilities under operating leases that expire through January 2019. Aggregate rental expense under all operating leases was approximately $207,000, $202,000 and $219,000 in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. At December 31, 2015, the future minimum rental commitments under existing non-cancelable operating leases totaled $648,000 due during the year ending December 31, 2019.

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, 2015, 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, 2015.

In California, third parties have the ability to challenge California Environmental Quality Act approvals in State Court, and, in 2012, the Company was named as a real-party-in-interest in nine lawsuits challenging the various Water Project approvals granted by the Santa Margarita Water District (“SMWD”) and San Bernardino County (the “County”). In 2013, three cases were dismissed or otherwise settled. Trial in the six remaining cases, which were brought by two petitioners, began in December 2013 and concluded in February 2014.

In September 2014, the Orange County Superior Court (the “Court”) issued final signed judgments (“Judgments”) formally denying all claims brought in the six lawsuits. The Judgments upheld the environmental review and approvals of the Water Project and also awarded costs to SMWD, the County, Cadiz and Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company as the prevailing parties in the cases.

The Judgments served as the Court’s final actions in the six cases.

During the fourth quarter of 2014, the petitioners filed independent appeals of the six Judgments in the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Since that time, the appeals cases have been fully briefed, including the filing of 11 Amicus Curiae “Friend of the Court” briefs in support of the Project’s approvals by a broad cross section of government, business and public interest groups. Oral argument in these outstanding cases has been scheduled by the Appeals Court for late March 2016. The Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any of the proceedings.

The appeals process is not projected to have any impact on the Company’s ongoing implementation and pre-construction activities for the Water Project.

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 Defendants have made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospectus. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the action.

On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016. The Judge has not yet issued a ruling and the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding.

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 lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the action. No case related activity has yet occurred before the Court.

While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit and the shareholder derivative lawsuit are without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, the Company will evaluate these matters on an ongoing basis and record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a 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.