CHICO -- In a state where water disputes often have played out like old Sunday morning Westerns, Kevin Taylor is one of those who tries to keep the peace.

Taylor, a government "water cop," enforces court-decreed water rights under the state watermaster program.

But his job and the program itself may be in for big changes as farmers and ranchers faced with the prospect of soaring water-use fees fight to wrest control from the state and put it in the hands of individual counties.

"I'm not against people looking to save money, but I'm not sure if they realize how complicated this can be," said Taylor, a watermaster in Northern California. "When you regulate water, you are taking food off a man's table and clothes off his kids' backs."

The effort is a response to one of several recent attempts by the state Department of Water Resources to create revenue through consumer-financed programs.

Agency officials said public investment is necessary to secure the future of California's water supply. But those who object to the fees said they are the government's way of trying to fund their own projects without dipping into the state budget.

Amid escalating disputes over water rights, California in 1924 established the watermaster program, overseen by the Department of Water Resources. The program affects about 1,600 owners of water rights in Northern California most of them farmers from Napa to Siskiyou counties.

Watermasters measure stream flow and diversions to make sure water is allocated to users according to priorities and assigned rights. The service normally runs from April through September, during the peak irrigation season.

Until recently, the program's cost was split evenly between the department and the water users, who paid their annual fees through property taxes.

But a 2004 state Senate bill placed the financial burden solely on the water users. That year, the Department of Water Resources reevaluated its estimate of the eight-person program's cost, doubling it from about $800,000 to $1.6 million.

In 2005, the estimate increased again, to $2.2 million.

Jack Hanson, who runs a cattle and hay ranch near Susanville in Lassen County, said the proposed increases would have raised his annual water fees from about $876 to about $4,000.

"I don't know if it would have put me out of business, but it's another straw that goes on my back," he said. "Each and every incremental cost squeezes us pretty hard."

Bill Eiler, president of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau, said the soaring costs for the watermaster program would be unbearable for some farmers and ranchers.

"Many of them can barely afford what they've got laid on them already," he said.

Various provisions in the state budget over the past two years have prevented the department from collecting on its proposed fees, temporarily aiding the farmers. The total program cost has remained steady at $780,000 for the past two fiscal years.

But officials in many counties don't want to wait until they have to bear the full cost. They have been working to transfer control of the program from the state to a local entity such as a resource conservation district.

County officials and farmers said the locally controlled programs would be less expensive.

Current fees pay the watermasters' salaries, as well as transportation costs, supplies and some of the operating costs of Department of Water Resources offices in Sacramento and Red Bluff.

Many area farmers and farm organizations question the need for higher watermaster fees and wonder if they are the department's way of trying to make up for recent budget cuts.

"We want to know how the DWR is coming up with these numbers," said Tony Francois, director of water resources for the California Farm Bureau Federation. "After all, this is a six-month-a-year job and a relatively simple program."

The DWR says the fees are legitimate and that the transfer of financial responsibilities was a necessary way of dealing with the larger challenge of meeting California's long-term water needs.

"We're trying to diversify how we invest in water resources in California," said Jerry Johns, the department's deputy director of water planning and management. "Shouldn't beneficiaries of the water supply help pay for it?"

He said the department supports the idea of local control of the watermaster program, as long as it is funded by the users.

"We don't have a problem with that concept of a shift in control as long as (the counties) take control of everything," Johns said. "We're either in it or we're not no responsibilities, no liabilities."

Johns acknowledged local agencies likely could operate on a smaller budget than the state can, due to the department's high overhead costs.

But Taylor whose service area encompasses Napa, Butte, Tehama and Shasta counties said he worries about the ability to maintain the program's quality under local or private control.

"This isn't a job just anybody could do," he said.

Looking for someone to blame when water is in short supply, irate landowners have even tried to assault him, Taylor said. He also worries putting locals in charge of the program could lead to biased allocation of water, he said.

"No one can get to me out here, and I'm not beholden to anybody," Taylor said while making his rounds at Butte Creek in Chico in late September. "But I can see how with someone else, there could be temptation."

Under state law, water users in areas that are designated to be served by a state watermaster must participate in the program. County courts must approve any transfer in authority.

That process will be helped by a bill signed in September by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which makes it easier to transfer the watermaster program from the state to a local agency.

Such a change would be welcome to farmers such as Eiler, the county farm bureau president who also grows grain and hay on his land just south of the Oregon border.

"Right now, it feels like we're playing Russian roulette with the government, trying to figure out if they're going to protect us from these fees for another year," he said.