For many who attempted it, the 4Creeks’ report resulting from its investigation of the irrigation routines on the AB La Grange Ranch was a  challenging read. Last December, Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Director Janice Keating said she had found it difficult to understand.

Perhaps as a result of that difficulty, Keating joined Director Larry Byrd in voting against further investigation. Byrd, along with his brother Tim and farm developer Ty Angle, is a partner on the AB La Grange, a property just north of the Tuolumne River, in southeastern Stanislaus County. Byrd voted in a clear conflict of interest. A California State Senator has urged the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the vote.

It would almost certainly benefit Janice Keating’s constituents and MID itself if Keating were to take a closer look at the 4Creeks’ report. Janice Keating is a self-employed accountant. When she ran for office, she promised to be a budget hawk. She said she would trim waste and save ratepayers money.

In theory, then, no MID Boardmember should be better qualified to explain what appear to be some very curious accounting methods revealed in the 4Creeks’ report. The 4Creeks’ report includes graphs representing five years’ of irrigation pumping records on 340 acres of almond orchards.

There were two sources for the reports, electrical power records and “TruPoint” records. The power records represent recorded electricity rates from the 250 horsepower pump that delivers water to Byrd’s almond trees from the MID main canal. The TruPoint data is generated from reports made by MID ditch tenders. Ditch tenders read flow meters and report irrigation events more or less as they occur; sometimes they rely on oral reports from ranch managers and owners.

Again theoretically, we shouldn’t expect the TruPoint records and power records to differ by very much. Both the TruPoint data and power records putatively measure the same event or series of events; they are reports of irrigations on a given property at specific times that then add up to a water usage total over a year’s time. That total is also represented in the water bill that every farmer pays as part of his overhead.

The power records and TruPoint records as represented on page 14 of the 4Creeks’ report don’t match. Some years they’re fairly close, as in 2021 and 2023. Other years they’re widely divergent, as in 2020, 2022, and 2024, where the reports sometimes differ by hundreds of acre-feet.

2022 is an especially intriguing year for a number of reasons, but especially since it was a year of severely reduced irrigation allotment. Normal MID irrigation allotments are 42 inches.

Because it was an exceptionally dry year, the MID allotment for 2022 was 30 inches. While it would take someone from 4Creeks to decipher exactly how many acre feet are represented by divergent lines on the graphs — the orange lines represent power records; the blue are for TruPoint reports — 4Creeks reported that Byrd’s MID water use for 2022 was 40.37 inches. Whether that figure was compiled from an average of electrical data and the TruPoint data together, we don’t know.

If compiled from an average, it would mean that Director Byrd’s yearly irrigation total on the AB La Grange Ranch comprises three different figures, the power records, the TruPoint records, and the average of the two.

There’s another MID report, gathered as the result of a public records request, that shows Director Byrd pumped 977 acre feet of MID surface water onto the AB La Grange Ranch in 2022. That figure could also be derived from either the power records or TruPoint records. It’s not the same, however, as the 40.37 inches reported by 4Creeks.

40.37 inches is 3.36 feet. 3.36 acre-feet times 340 acres is 1142 acre-feet.  977 divided by 340 is 2.87 acre-feet. So if Byrd had pumped 977 acre feet in 2022, he would have been very close to the 30-inch MID allotment for that year (2.5 acre-feet), but well under the 1142 acre-feet reported by 4Creeks.

In any case, it now seems we have four different records for the same irrigation total for the AB La Grange Ranch in 2022 — the TruPoint records, the power records, the (maybe) average of the two, and the 977 acre-feet sent as a response to a public records request.

Fortunately for Director Byrd and his partners on the AB La Grange Ranch, none of these various records affected their bottom line in 2022. In 2022, at least according to another set of MID records, Director Byrd and his partners pumped only two acre-feet of water onto those 340 acres of in-district almond trees on the AB La Grange Ranch. At least, two acre-feet were all they were billed for.

So we now have a fifth record — 680 acre-feet — for Larry Byrd’s irrigation total for 2022 on the AB La Grange Ranch. None of these totals includes, of course, the 96 acres of out-of-district almond trees on the AB La Grange Ranch. Those trees, to hear Director Byrd tell it, thrived on groundwater. 4Creeks said, however, there was no way they were served by groundwater.

All in all, it seems as though Director Janice Keating should be taking a far greater interest in MID’s accounting methods, especially since that is her field of special expertise. The same might be said of MID General Manager Jimi Netniss.

In 2022, Jimi Netniss was promoted to Assistant General Manager of Finance at Modesto Irrigation District. Prior to that, he was involved in Budget and Rates administration. Shortly thereafter, in 2023, he was appointed General Manager. One of his biggest boosters was Larry Byrd, who said at the time,

“His demonstrated leadership and strategic vision will be an asset as the District navigates any challenges and capitalizes on opportunities ahead.”

After his 2023 promotion, Netniss’s yearly compensation went from $215,996.45 to $502,824.24. Budget and rates are his specialties.

Given Janice Keating’s and Jimi Netniss’s trained expertise and long experience in accounting, it’s difficult to comprehend how both of them have managed to remain so oblivious to glaring irregularities in MID’s record keeping for Larry Byrd’s use of MID’s most precious public asset. Perhaps they’ve both forgotten their fiduciary duty to the MID farmers and ratepayers whose power and water payments shouldn’t enable a public utility to become a private watering trough for a Director with a smorgasbord of widely variable payment options, none of which seems to represent what actually happens to the Tuolumne River surface water that finds its way to the AB La Grange Ranch via MID infrastructure and water rights.

It’s time for an audit.

The more you look into Larry Byrd’s irrigation history on the AB La Grange Ranch, the more you understand why he cast the deciding vote to end an investigation into that same history.

Byrd’s vote last December 16 violated basic ethical principles at least as old as ancient Greece and Rome. It did not and could not, however, relieve Modesto Irrigation District (MID) of its responsibility to govern the use of Tuolumne River surface water within district boundaries.

As a sitting member of the MID Board of Directors, Byrd’s chief responsibilities are to district farmers and ratepayers. His own use of MID water and power should therefore be transparent and aboveboard. Last fall, when MID Boardmembers voted to investigate whether Byrd had pumped surface water across district boundaries and onto out-of-district almond orchards, Byrd said he “looked forward” to clearing his name.

The 4Creeks’ investigation did not clear Byrd’s name. Instead, it supported claims by former employees that Byrd had not used groundwater to irrigate the out-of-district trees among the 436 acres of almond orchards he farms on the AB La Grange Ranch in southeastern Stanislaus County. The only other irrigation source was MID surface water.

Among many possible subjects Director Byrd may have wished to avoid with further investigation, billing was likely at or near the top of the list. Billing became an issue when 4Creeks revealed Byrd had gone over the thirty-inch MID water allotment in 2022, a very dry year. The normal allotment is forty-two inches.

Last December, Byrd said his apparent violation of the 2022 allotment could be explained by his “Master Water Plan.” As we’ve described in previous reports, the Master Water Plan provides MID farmers opportunities to move water from property to property so as to maximize efficient use. It’s especially valued during years of reduced allotments because it enables farmers to transfer water from annual crops like rice or corn to so-called “permanent” crops like almonds. Corn and rice can be fallowed during dry years. Almonds cannot.

Last January, I requested a copy of Larry Byrd’s 2022 Master Water Plan. What I received were redacted copies of irrigation totals and billing for eight properties. I was able to infer the redacted information with ancillary knowledge gained from previous public records requests and other published information.

Larry Byrd’s Master Water Plan did not explain why he was permitted to exceed the 2022 reduced irrigation allotment. Instead, it showed that all eight properties in the plan were billed for two acre-feet per property. The properties involved irrigate pasture and/or almonds. Both crops require at least three-and-a-half acre-feet of water, as determined by the 4Creeks’ investigation.

Moreover, those rules of MID’s that are available for public view specify that billing for exceeding allotments will be forty dollars per acre-foot. According to the 4Creeks’ investigation, Director Byrd pumped almost three-and-a-half acre-feet of MID surface water onto the AB La Grange Ranch in 2022, a year when the MID allotment was two-and-half acre-feet.

It’s reasonable to believe that amount or greater was pumped onto all the properties in Byrd’s Master Plan that same year because pasture and almonds have similar irrigation requirements. If that were the case, billing should have been based on normal rates up to two-and-a half acre-feet. After that, all properties should have been billed forty dollars per acre-foot for exceeding the MID allotment. Instead, all properties were billed at MID’s minimum rate of two-dollars per acre-foot because they reported using only two acre-feet of water per farm unit.

Assume for a moment that the irrigation and billing figures for Larry Byrd were those of a small farmer. What is the likelihood that small farmer would be able to (1) stop an investigation into the use of MID surface water on the farm (2) exceed the MID allotment without any apparent penalty or the due payment of forty-dollars per excess acre-foot and (3) pay a flat rate of two acre-feet?

Consider also that in 2022, during reduced water allotments, MID raised power rates by 9.6%. Director Larry Byrd voted for the increase. He must have felt MID needed increased revenues.

It shouldn’t take an investigation to determine whether or not in-district MID farmers have been billed fairly and accurately for irrigating their crops. Rather, it now appears there should be ample evidence for MID management itself to determine when farmers have failed to pay MID rates for MID water, especially since MID General Manager Jimi Netniss’s area of expertise has been rates and billing. He was very involved in the process that established increased rates for power users in 2022, when he was in MID’s finance department. In 2023, he was promoted to General Manager.

It may be there are reasonable explanations for the growing list of questions raised by the 4Creeks’ investigation. If so, MID management has a fiduciary duty to provide those explanations. So do MID Boardmembers.

For ten months, the controversy about Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Boardmember Larry Byrd centered on Byrd’s suspected use of MID surface water on out-of-district almond orchards he irrigates on the AB La Grange Ranch in southeastern Stanislaus County, just west of the unincorporated community of La Grange. Now, another question has risen; this time, it’s about Byrd’s billing records for his in-district trees.

The AB La Grange Ranch includes orchards on two properties, locally known as the “Rodoni” and “Rairden” ranches. Last year’s 4Creeks’ investigation into the possibility Byrd used surface water on the out-of-district trees concluded he could not have used groundwater. The only other available irrigation source was MID surface water.

Despite a request from MID Board Chair Robert Frobose that 4Creeks investigate irrigation routines on the Rairden property, the Rairden wasn’t studied. Only the Rodoni property was studied. After recent public records requests, I discovered an intriguing pattern of billed water use on both the Rairden and Rodoni properties.

The Rairden property offers several advantages for close study because it’s small. The Rairden orchard comprises approximately seventy-six acres (76.2); about thirty-one of those acres (30.77) are within MID boundaries; the rest are outside. Total acreage on the Rodoni property is four-hundred thirty-six acres. Three-hundred forty of those acres are in-district.

Among the most useful findings of the 4Creeks’ investigation was the establishment of an Irrigation Water Requirement (IWR) for the almond orchards on the Rodoni property. In a dry year like 2022, when water allotments were severely reduced, the IWR for the Rodoni orchard was just over forty-three inches per acre (43.08). That’s a bit over three-and-a-half acre-feet (3.59). An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover one acre of ground with one foot of water.

Since the Rodoni and Rairden orchards are only a short distance apart, we can confidently assume the IWR for both properties is the same. Using data supplied from MID power and pumping records, 4Creeks determined that Byrd pumped just over forty inches (40.37) per acre onto the Rodoni property in 2022 — very close to the IWR (and well over MID’s thirty-inch allotment for that same year). That’s about three-and-a-third acre-feet (3.36) of MID surface water onto three-hundred forty acres, for a total of over eleven-hundred acre feet (1142.4).

Using the same irrigation figures for the Rairden property, we would expect that Byrd pumped just over one-hundred three acre-feet onto the in-district trees (30.77 x 40.37 ÷ 12 = 103.51). He was billed for just under two acre-feet (61.59).

I was able to infer Larry Byrd’s billing rates after a public records request for his “Master Water Plan” (MWP). MID farmers use the MWP to aggregate water usage for several different properties. This enables them to fallow some properties in dry years so that they can apply the saved water to other properties. They can also achieve aggregate water allotments by transferring water from one property to another, so as to avoid paying for more water per acre under MID’s tiered pricing policy:

* ‎$265 Minimum Charge per Parcel

MID’s tiered pricing policy starts with a bottom rate of two acre-feet. For up to two acre-feet per property, MID water is priced at two dollars per acre-foot. The price from two acre-feet to three is five dollars for that extra foot of water. After three acre-feet, the price jumps to eleven-dollars and twenty-five cents per acre-foot. The tiered pricing structure encourages conservation and efficient irrigation practices.

In theory, Larry Byrd’s MWP would show reduced pumping or fallowing of one or more properties to enable him to apply the saved water to thirsty orchards during a dry year like 2022. However, all of the properties in the plan were irrigated and billed at precisely the same rate: four dollars per acre, or two acre-feet per property. Most every property in Byrd’s MWP irrigated almonds or pasture. As a rule, pastureland requires over three acre-feet of water, much like almonds.

The irrigation charges for almost thirty-one (30.77) acres on the Rairden property were one-hundred twenty-three dollars and eight cents ($123.08). That’s for two-acre feet per acre (2 x 2 x 30.77 = 123.08).

Assuming Director Byrd applied the same amount of water onto the Rairden as onto the Rodoni in 2022, we concluded above that he pumped just over one-hundred three acre-feet (103.51). If Byrd had paid in-district prices for irrigating the Rairden property with the same amount of MID surface water used on the nearby Rodoni, he’d have been billed a little over four-hundred  dollars ($403.00). That’s because he would have gone over MID’s second pricing tier ($5 per acre-foot) and into the third ($11.25 per acre-foot). Instead, Byrd was billed for less than one-third that amount ($403.00 ÷ $123.08 = 30%).

It may be that Larry Byrd has an explanation for the puzzling water rates on his MID Master Water Plan. He may claim he pumped groundwater to augment surface water deficits on the Rairden property. However, his claims about pumping groundwater onto the Rodoni have been thoroughly refuted, both by eyewitnesses and by the 4Creeks’ investigation. In any case, explanations for the use of a public resource on private property should be clear and comprehensive enough so as to be easily understood by the average public citizen.

As for the Rodoni property itself, Byrd was billed for the same two acre-feet as for the Rairden. Figure deficits, acre-feet and dollars on the Rodoni by multiplying the Rairden figures times eleven (340 ÷ 30.77 = 11.04). In both cases, Byrd is paying less than one-third MID in-district surface water rates. For example, instead of paying for eleven-hundred forty-two acre-feet on the Rodoni property, Byrd paid for six-hundred eighty and avoided tier two and tier three pricing.

Last December, MID Directors Chris Ott and Robert Frobose voted to continue investigating Larry Byrd’s use of surface water on the AB La Grange Ranch because the 4Creeks’ investigation raised more questions than it answered. Further investigation was thwarted when Larry Byrd voted against it, in a clear conflict of interest.

Today, it’s abundantly clear that Directors Ott and Frobose were entirely justified in voting to continue investigating Larry Byrd’s irrigation practices. In fact, it now appears further investigation should include Byrd’s in-district billing, not just on the AB La Grange Ranch, but on every property in his Master Water Plan.

After a public records request to Modesto Irrigation District (MID), I received a heavily redacted “Master Water Plan” for MID Director Larry Byrd’s AB La Grange Ranch and other properties. Despite the redactions, I was able to infer Byrd’s usage and billing based on data gained from previous public records requests. ec

Though the few people who actually read it left with strong suspicions it had omitted key details, the 4Creeks’ investigation into Larry Byrd’s irrigation practices on the AB La Grange Ranch established two very useful data points:

1. The investigation supported former Ranch Manager Todd Sill’s claims that Byrd’s out-of-district almond trees had not been irrigated with ground water.
2. The investigation established an irrigation water requirement (IWR) for almond crops with granular specific regard to the AB La Grange Ranch.

Actually, the IWR for almond crops has been common knowledge among farmers for decades. In fact, the IWR for almost any crop, from almonds to clover on through rice and walnuts is widely published. What the 4Creeks’ investigation did do was publish a shared baseline of knowledge about local irrigation from which to draw logical inferences and conclusions. That baseline knowledge confirms that three-and-a-half acre-feet of water per year is the general IWR for almonds.

That baseline IWR is why when anyone with even a modicum of irrigation and crop knowledge sees a figure like 862.4 acre-feet of Tuolumne River water pumped onto a total of 90 acres of pasture and 50 acres of almonds, as Byrd reported in 2022, the only possible responses are disbelief followed by suspicion.

Byrd’s reported riparian water extravagance is relevant here because 2022 was a year of severe water curtailments along the Tuolumne River. It was also a year of drastically reduced water allotments at Modesto Irrigation District (MID), where Larry Byrd sits on the Board of Directors. In 2022, the normal MID allotment of forty-two inches was reduced to thirty inches per acre.

So, when the 4Creeks’ investigation showed Byrd pumped 40.37 inches of MID surface water onto his 340 acres of almond trees on the Rodoni property — just a few city blocks north of the riparian crops — some people wondered how he was able to exceed his allotment.

Byrd said his usage could be explained by what some at MID call a “Master Water Plan” or “General Water Account.” These accounts are legal affiliations that enable MID surface water users to aggregate property and parcels for the purpose of conserving water and maximizing irrigation efficiency.

For example, if a farmer has 50 acres of rice and 50 acres of almonds and it’s a drought year, the farmer can fallow the rice. Water saved from the fallowed rice can be transferred to the almonds. The total irrigation allotment remains the same.

Both almonds and rice require at least three-and-a-half acre-feet of water, often more. Almonds are a so-called “permanent” crop; they can’t be fallowed one year and restored the next. So, a “General Water Account” can enable farmers to maximize water usage and survive drought years by rotating irrigation, depending on crop types.

In theory, Larry Byrd could have fallowed certain crops in 2022 so as to keep his almond orchards producing during a year of severely reduced allotments. However, that does not appear to be what happened, at least not as reported on Byrd’s Master Account.

Byrd’s general water accounting for 2022 shows a remarkable uniformity. There are eight parcels/properties involved. In 2022, every one of those eight parcels/properties was billed for two acre-feet of water.

In one case, for fifty acres of pasture, Byrd was billed for one-hundred acre feet of water, which was reportedly applied in one irrigation. For anyone familiar with general irrigation water requirements, those numbers are absurd. Pasture generally requires even more water than almonds, and much more than two acre-feet. Moreover, why would any farmer apply his total water volume in one round of irrigation?

The focus of the 4Creeks’ investigation was on 340 acres of almonds on property locally known as the “Rodoni Ranch.” According to Byrd’s Master Water Account, those same almonds were billed for two acre-feet of water. Those figures are as preposterous as the figures reported for Byrd’s use of riparian water in that same year. In fact, two acre-feet — twenty-four inches — isn’t just less than the IWR for almonds, it’s even less than MID’s reduced allotment of thirty inches for 2022!

For just under ten months, Larry Byrd and MID have been unable or unwilling to provide simple documentation that would clear the record about Byrd’s apparent illegal use of MID surface water on his out-of-district almond trees. Moreover, Byrd’s explanation that a “Master Water Plan” — or “General Water Account” — explains going over the thirty-inch allotment in 2022 does not hold up. In fact, he was billed for even less than thirty inches!

The closer we look at Larry Byrd’s pumping records and billing, the more discrepancies arise. Whereas 4Creeks reported Byrd’s surface water usage on the 340 acres at 1143.81 acre-feet, MID itself reported he used 977 acre-feet.

Then again, according to Larry Byrd’s Master Water Account, he was billed for 680 acre-feet. That’s an absurd figure, but only one of many.

It may be that Larry Byrd and MID management have simple explanations for an ever-growing list of discrepancies, impossibilities and preposterous pumping and billing numbers. Problem is, they’ve had almost ten months to provide those explanations and have not.

According to MID’s own records, Director Larry Byrd is billed for about half the IWR for all his in-district crops. That’s a scandal even more damning than the ongoing mystery of how Byrd’s ninety-six acres of almond trees have managed to thrive without water.

No wonder Larry Byrd voted against further investigation into his irrigation practices. There was obviously a lot to keep hidden.

Members of the lay public who tried to trudge through the blizzard of drifting snow that covered critical details of the 4Creeks’ investigation into Larry Byrd’s irrigation of over five-hundred acres of almond trees on the AB La Grange Ranch would be entirely justified for calling the investigation a  “cover-up.”

Actually, the investigation is a treasure trove of incriminating data; problem is, 4Creeks never connected the dots.

Larry Byrd sits on the Board of Directors for Modesto Irrigation District (MID). He’s partners with his brother Tim and farm developer Ty Angle on properties formerly known as the “Rodoni” and “Rairden” ranches, just west of La Grange, an unincorporated community most famous these days for “Louie’s Place,” a bar and restaurant beloved by locals and frequented by tourists, bikers, and boaters. La Grange is near the southeastern corner of Stanislaus County.

Byrd’s irrigation sources became a public issue last July, when a former member of the Oakdale Irrigation District Board of Directors said he had almond trees outside MID boundaries. Byrd had previously led people to believe all his trees were within the district.

Asked about the out-of-district trees, Byrd claimed he irrigated them with water from “deep wells.” When a former ranch foreman said that the diesel pump for the well in question was “seldom” used, MID Board Members decided to investigate. The foreman’s claims were corroborated by a co-worker and seven years’ meticulous journal records, including pumping routines. MID hired 4Creeks, an engineering firm specializing in design and construction, to conduct the investigation.

After several months, the investigation raised more questions than it answered. However, 4Creeks’ investigators did corroborate claims that Byrd had not irrigated his out-of-district trees with groundwater. The exact wording from 4Creeks’ investigation reads as follows:

“….the cumulative water balance assessment demonstrates that available groundwater was insufficient to satisfy crop irrigation requirements for the Out-MID unit across the combined four-year period. Both the upper and lower estimates indicate substantial groundwater deficits, ranging from approximately 0.65 acre-feet per acre to 3.98 acre-feet per acre annually. These deficits indicate that groundwater alone could not have met the full irrigation demands of crops cultivated within the Out-MID study unit during the analysis period…”

Once it had been established that Byrd hadn’t used groundwater, the only issues pertinent to MID stakeholders were how much water Byrd paid for and whether it was enough to meet irrigation requirements for the total almond acreage farmed on the AB La Grange Ranch. 4Creeks did not address those questions.

First, MID ratepayers — power and water users and in-district farmers — still need to know how much water Byrd has been billed for. Second, they need to know whether the amount he was billed for in acre-feet was greater than, equal to, or less than the irrigation water requirement for the total almond acreage on the AB La Grange Ranch.

The answer to the second question might necessarily involve further inquiry. For example, if the billed amount equaled the amount of water required for the in-district trees, there would then be the need to know how much MID surface water was delivered to out-of-district trees free of charge. Absent groundwater, there was no other source than MID surface water.

If the amount billed was greater than the amount needed for the in-district trees, the clear indication would be that Byrd used the water out-of-district. The question then becomes, “How much water?” That question can be answered by referring to the “Irrigation Water Requirement” (IWR) established by the 4Creeks’ investigation and similar figures widely available throughout the state.

There’s another possibility, by far the most disturbing. Suppose that Byrd did not use groundwater but was billed for less than the amount of water needed for his total acreage? If the billing figures showed Byrd was billed for less water than the IWR, the reasonable inference could only be that MID has a severe accounting problem. Surface water is a public resource and MID’s greatest asset.

And, in fact, MID pumping records show that Byrd did not use enough water for his total acreage. According to 4Creeks, and based on common knowledge among farmers, the IWR for an almond crop in the northern San Joaquin Valley is approximately forty inches. The rule-of-thumb for most Valley farmers is forty-two inches, or three-and-a-half feet.

The 4Creeks’ study included four-hundred and thirty-six acres. Three-hundred and forty acres are within MID boundaries. Ninety-six acres are outside. The study period included years from 2020 through 2024. 2022 was a dry year, and thus offers a particularly illuminating example based on reported water use on the AB La Grange Ranch.

The MID allotment for 2022 was thirty inches, or two-and-a-half feet. According to 4Creeks, MID deliveries to the AB La Grange Ranch amounted to just over forty inches (40.37; Table 8). That’s a little over three-and-a-third acre-feet (3.36). Byrd has explained he was able to go over the MID allotment by balancing water allotments with a master water plan or general water account (more about that later).

Multiply 40.37 times 340 and divide by 12. The answer, in acre-feet, is just under eleven-hundred and forty-four (1143.81). Now, multiply 40.37 times 436. The answer is just under 1467 acre-feet (1466.77). That’s over three-hundred acre-feet of unaccounted for water — the water needed for the ninety-six acres (96 x 40.37 divided by 12 = 322.96 acre-feet). Today’s price for out-of-district MID water is two-hundred dollars an acre-foot.

Do the math. According to 4Creeks’ data, based on information supplied by MID, Byrd’s AB La Grange Ranch did not receive enough water to meet the IWR for his total acreage of thriving almond trees.

It gets worse.

When I asked for the actual billing records for MID surface water on the Rodoni property’s three-hundred forty acres on the AB La Grange Ranch, MID sent a report saying Byrd used nine-hundred seventy-seven acre-feet. That figure is significantly short of the acre-feet reported by 4Creeks.

Another interesting thing about that report is that it’s much closer to the thirty-inch MID allotment for 2022 than the almost eleven-hundred forty-four (1143.81) reported by 4Creeks. In acre-feet, the thirty-inch allotment for three-hundred forty acres comes to eight-hundred fifty acre-feet, just below the nine-hundred seventy-seven acre-feet in the MID report.

Disregarding the discrepancies — just for the moment — between 4Creeks’ figures (1143.81 acre-feet) and MID’s numbers (977 acre-feet) none of these figures meets the IWR for Byrd’s four-hundred thirty-six acres of almond trees.

It gets worse.

In addition to the four-hundred thirty-six acres Byrd and his partners irrigate on the Rodoni property, there are another seventy-two acres on the Rairden property. Forty-two of those acres are outside MID boundaries; thirty are within. Though MID Board Chair Robert Frobose specified the Rairden property be included in the 4Creeks’ investigation, it was omitted. When I requested pumping records for the Rairden property, they came heavily redacted.

With regard to the redacted records, it is almost certain that Larry Byrd and his partners are invoking privacy rights to avoid having to release details about their “Master Water Plan,” pumping records for the Rairden property, and other details pertinent to water use on the AB La Grange Ranch. After all, if those records were exculpatory, Byrd and MID would be trumpeting them as headline news.

Despite Byrd’s putative privacy rights, however, the fact remains he is an elected official sitting on the board of a public utility. Furthermore, there is case law (New York Times vs Goleta Water District) regarding the release of information when customers of a public utility exceed their water allotments; in that case, the court concluded that the public interest outweighs privacy rights in cases involving private abuse of public water allocations.

In total, Larry Byrd and his partners irrigate 138 acres of out-of-district almond trees on the AB La Grange Ranch. The aforementioned price for out-of-district MID water is two-hundred dollars an acre-foot. Do the math.

Based on numbers released so far, the Modesto Irrigation District isn’t getting paid for a significant proportion of the District’s most precious asset. That asset is one of the chief resources in the general public interest.

In short, the public has a right to know why MID has released conflicting accounts of water usage on the AB La Grange Ranch and how much water Larry Byrd and his partners actually paid for. At this point, the released records don’t match and none of the released figures meet the Irrigation Water Requirements established by the 4Creeks’ investigation.

It’s time for the truth to come out.

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” James Madison

Virtually no one disputes the fundamental conflict of interest principle expressed by James Madison in the Federalist Number Ten. In fact, Madison himself derived the principle from ancient Roman law, where it’s expressed in Latin as, “Nemo judex in causa sua.”

Nonetheless, despite the obvious truth of the ancient Roman maxim, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) ended an investigation into the irrigation practices of a member of its Board of Directors when that same member voted in his own interest last December 16.

Larry Byrd’s conflict of interest when he voted to end the 4Creeks’ investigation into water use on the AB La Grange ranch was obvious and got widespread publicity. Less obvious were the other conflicts.

It seemed entirely aboveboard when Director John Boer recused himself before the December 16 vote. After all, Boer works for Byrd’s brother Tim, who is a partner in the AB La Grange Ranch. Nonetheless, by any measure, Boer had no personal financial interest at issue.

In fact, the only possible financial interest — or liability — Boer could possibly have in the investigation would be if he were to suffer adverse consequences from his employer — Byrd’s brother and partner — if he were to vote to continue the investigation. On the other hand, a vote to end the investigation could be construed as an attempt to curry favor with his boss, so Boer recused.

The problem here is that Boer’s recusal amounted to a “no” vote in any case. Based on questions raised by the investigation itself and the failure to determine the water source for Byrd’s out-of-district trees, Directors Robert Frobose and Chris Ott voted to continue the investigation. Ott said that failure to continue would, “look like a cover-up.”

When Janice Keating joined Larry Byrd in voting to end the investigation, Boer’s recusal amounted to another “no” vote because his abstention resulted in an end to the investigation. It deprived District ratepayers and the public in general of further investigation into Byrd’s alleged misuse of the District’s most valuable asset — water — which is monitored and managed by MID in service to the public trust.

Moreover, if Boer’s supposed “conflict” is due to possible adverse consequences should his vote displease his employer, how does that same issue affect MID management and counsel?

Larry Byrd was the prime mover in the termination of Ronda Lucas, MID’s water attorney, in 2025. Given his close relationship with John Boer via Byrd’s brother, Byrd can conceivably command two Board votes at any given time. Boardmember Janice Keating has sided with Byrd in recent votes; it would make sense to see Byrd’s influence on MID staff and management as conflicting a factor as his brother’s influence on John Boer. Byrd is, in a very real sense, a “boss,” or, “employer.”

In fact, one of the more puzzling questions during the nine-month long inquiry into the source of water for Byrd’s out-of-district trees — over 140 acres — is why MID hasn’t been able to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other by way of billing and pumping records. It would seem as though staff and management have ceded both authority and responsibility in much the same way as John Boer has, and perhaps for the same reasons, especially since such records could have cleared the issue months ago.

In any case, a reasonable inference here is that conflicts of interest at the Modesto Irrigation District have resulted in an abuse of the public trust. The only corrective is intervention by higher authorities, including a full-scale audit by a disinterested and qualified third party.

Based on her performance during last Thursday night’s debate in downtown Modesto, Alexandra Duarte is counting on riding the MAGA train to victory in California’s June primary — she calls it “MCGA” as in, “Make California Great Again.”

Ms. Duarte is running against incumbent State Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil in California’s 4^th District election this November. California’s “jungle primary” system requires a field of multiple candidates to be winnowed to two after a June primary. The third candidate in the race is Tuolumne County Supervisor Jaron Brandon.

Depending on one’s perspective, Ms. Duarte may or may not have gained from her dependence on two and only two of Donald Trump’s signature memes, MCGA (MAGA) and hostility towards anything “transgender.” She repeated “Make California Great Again” over and over. During an hour-long debate, she brought in transgender issues six* times, regardless of context.

By the sixth* repetition of “transgender,” there were audible groans throughout the audience — over 200 people at 927 10^th Street in downtown Modesto. By far the loudest round of applause of the night came when Brandon said,

“Let’s quit picking on transgender kids.”

Brandon and Alvarado-Gil were more prepared on the issues. As the debate went on, Duarte increasingly spoke in vague generalities. Alvarado-Gil showed a much broader and deeper knowledge of how government actually works. So did Brandon.

Brandon and Alvarado-Gil also showed strong support for food programs for the Valley’s needy citizens, especially children.

“Feeding people is good for business,” said Brandon. “Children can’t learn in school when they’re hungry.”

Neither Brandon nor Alvarado-Gil mentioned Duarte’s role as President of Stanislaus East Mutual Water Company, a consortium of groundwater-dependent orchard developers on Stanislaus County’s east side. Most of their property is outside any of the county’s water districts. The group as a whole is known as the, “Non-District East.”

In a letter dated August 8 of last year and addressed to the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA), Duarte outlined a proposal,

“…to maximize existing resources, improve modeling accuracy, and promote regional collaboration for sustainable water use.”

The letter goes on to suggest that the Modesto Surface Water Treatment Plant increase production so that Modesto and other cities throughout Stanislaus County reduce reliance on groundwater. Sounds good. The problem is that treated surface water is far more expensive than groundwater; bottom line: urban water rates throughout the county would skyrocket.

Many insiders, including Modesto Irrigation District’s Board Chairman, Robert Frobose, see Duarte’s proposal as an attempt to secure reduced-rate surface water for Non-District East almond growers at the expense of urban users, whose water rates would increase dramatically.

After reading Ms. Duarte’s letter, Frobose issued a debate question for Duarte reading in part as follows,

“that water company (Stanislaus East Mutual Water Company) is a few almond orchard developers that official reports have shown are overdrafting the water basin and causing environmental harm…in that (August 8) letter, you are asking that Modesto and surrounding cities be required to use surface water instead of groundwater, which would result in all the residents and ratepayers paying more for their daily water needs.”

The issue wasn’t raised during the debate.

Frobose believes Non-District East farm developers are trying to requisition taxpayer dollars to pay for the infrastructure and water needed to irrigate their almond orchards. He fears that if they gain political power, they can use undue influence to direct water policy throughout Stanislaus County, bringing rising costs to local tax and ratepayers.

Frobose follows water issues closely. He’s well aware that the overdrafted Colorado River, which serves much of Southern California’s water needs, can no longer meet the south’s water requirements. The resulting shortfalls will increase demand — and prices — for Northern California water. He also thinks we can’t count on normal snow packs and weather patterns going forward. Water is going to be scarcer and more expensive.

“Somebody’s got to be looking out for the ratepayers,” said Frobose last Thursday.

Of the three Senate candidates, Brandon and Alvarado-Gil have more experience in government than Duarte. Alvarado-Gil may have had a net loss of voters when she switched from the Democratic to Republican Party in 2024. District 4 is deep red, which is likely why Duarte has gone full MAGA.

Jaron Brandon, a fiscally conservative Democrat with a strong record of achievement in Tuolumne County, believes there is a bipartisan middle road for local  government, based on common needs for public education, public safety, affordable power — he’s especially eager to reduce PG&E’s dominance of the state energy market — and affordable housing. He clearly sees the need to prune and uproot the regulatory thicket that has prevented building affordable housing for decades.

In our current era of identity politics, party preferences have come to dictate elections more and more. Local candidates offer a way forward by emphasizing common needs and values. Perhaps it’s time to start listening to politician’s positions and holding them accountable once elected. Local government depends on local citizenship.

*An earlier version of this report had “five” rather than six times.

After almost nine months of inquiry and investigation, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) is still unable (or unwilling) to determine whether or not MID Director Larry Byrd used MID surface water on out-of-district trees on the AB LaGrange Ranch, where he is a partner with his brother Tim Byrd and Tyler “Ty” Angle.

The out-of-district trees are in two separate almond orchards near the town of LaGrange in southeastern Stanislaus County. One, on a property also known as the “Rodoni” ranch, consists of just under 340 acres of in-district property. Another 96.7 acres are out-of-district. A second orchard, known locally as the “Rairden” property, features thirty acres in-district and 42 acres outside district boundaries.

Last July 8, former Oakdale Irrigation District Board Member Linda Santos suggested during a public meeting that Director Byrd was watering out-of-district trees with MID surface water, a clear violation of district rules. Subsequently, Todd Sill, AB LaGrange ranch manager from 2016 until 2023, claimed Byrd “seldom” used groundwater on the out-of-district trees. Byrd himself claimed that he irrigated the out-of-district trees with groundwater he pumped “almost daily” during hot weather.

After months of discussion and debate, the MID Board of Directors approved an investigation into Byrd’s alleged misuse of MID water last October. After ten weeks of investigation, 4Creeks Design and Construction firm determined Byrd could not have used groundwater on the out-of-district trees. Despite this conclusion, 4Creeks investigators said they could not determine whether Byrd used MID surface to irrigate the out-of-district trees. There were no other water sources available.

Local farmers say almond trees need three to four feet of water per acre. The general rule-of-thumb is three and a half feet. Larry Byrd has a total of one-hundred thirty-eight acres of out-of-district almonds — ninety-six on the Rodoni and forty-two on the Rairden. At a highly conservative estimate of three acre-feet per year, one-hundred thirty-eight acres of almonds would require four-hundred and fourteen acre-feet of water per year.

The current price for MID out-of-district water is two-hundred dollars per acre-foot. Two-hundred dollars times four-hundred and fourteen comes to eighty-two thousand and eight-hundred dollars ($82,800). Over a five-year period, that’s four-hundred fourteen thousand dollars ($414,000). Remember, these dollar amounts are based on a water use estimate on the very low end — actual usage averages were likely much higher.

MID’s inability to account for that much of our most valuable public resource is inexcusable. Over the course of the Byrd controversy, Byrd and others have implied that other farmers have applied MID surface water on out-of-district property by suggesting continued investigations would “open a can of worms.” If other farmers are indeed irrigating out-of-district properties with MID surface water, the loss to MID ratepayers of the district’s most precious resource could amount to millions of dollars per year.

The Modesto Irrigation District is a public utility charged with governing the use of a public resource. The State of California is the ultimate authority for public utilities within state boundaries. The failure of MID management to account for water use within district boundaries is a failure to govern and amounts to a gross disservice to MID ratepayers. It’s time for the State to step in and assure MID ratepayers the district’s most valuable asset is properly policed and paid for.

MID ratepayers have the right to the truth about where their water goes.

Richard Anderson left us two weeks ago today.

Several years ago, I was reporting on homelessness in Modesto when Richard Anderson asked whether I’d be willing to take him to a homeless camp. I told him they were pretty rough places. Richard said he was used to rough places, but I doubted him. He looked frail. He had been diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer several years prior and had had a lung removed.

At the time, there was a camp on south Ninth Street where I knew most of the residents. I figured it would be safe enough.

Richard showed up with a camera and tripod. He was wearing loose fitting sandals. I worried about him falling. We had to walk over railroad tracks and wickedly sharp stones to get into the camp. Richard looked unsteady.

I shouldn’t have worried. Richard’s body seemed to operate as a function of his will, which even gravity couldn’t bring down — at least not then. Richard teetered, but he didn’t fall.

Film was just one of many of Richard’s passions. He was intent on recording local history. He captured volumes. He filmed over 250 videos with a local focus. He was the driving force for the documentary films Homeless in Modesto I and II.

Richard was also a pathfinder, but not in the usual sense. Richard found paths for others. That was his great gift. He led us into the light he shone forward toward achieving humanity.

With a PhD in Plant Cell Biology, Richard’s command of science was broad and detailed; he was a practicing ecologist and one of earth’s most steadfast advocates. Richard’s wife, Lynn Hansen, pioneered science instruction at Modesto Junior College by becoming the school’s first female Professor of Science.

An accomplished poet, Lynn partnered with Richard to promote the arts, the learning, and the values that direct our ongoing mission for a better community. She continues his project of inspiration, ennobling us with her presence as Richard did, with his constant practice of virtue and benign sacrifice, so long and so strong.

Four years ago, we published Tom Portwood’s profile of Richard Anderson. We’ve brought it back below, in memoriam.

Dr. Richard Anderson’s Life Lessons in Citizenship

By Tom Portwood — One of the Valley’s great community leaders, Dr. Richard Anderson took an often-adventurous path in life prior to arriving as a Professor of Microbiology at Modesto Junior College in 1989. Along the way, he experienced things that helped to shape the dedicated and caring activist he is today.

Not surprisingly, he has always worked fiercely as an advocate for a wide array of worthy causes — from fighting for social justice in the Santa Barbara of the late sixties and early seventies to teaming with others on the Modesto Homeless Documentary Project — and continues to do so well into his retirement years.

Early on, Dr. Anderson learned the value of looking for lessons in every situation.

“I was born in Des Moines Iowa, in 1944, but we moved to California when I was four, so I am basically a Californian,” Dr. Anderson recently recounted.

“We went to a literalist Christian church. Attending that church has been a problem for me as well as a blessing. But I did learn good lessons from that experience — that we should love others as we love ourselves and that we have a responsibility to make this world a good place.”

From an early age, Richard was fascinated by science, and enrolled at the University of Southern California with the intent of becoming a medical missionary. Upon graduation, though, he was still searching for what he wanted to do with his life.

Staying on at USC for graduate studies, he,

“Analyzed the feeding habits of fish, Lanternfish, in particular. Every day these fish migrate 300 meters down into the dark because they have to escape predators, and at nighttime they all come up again and start feeding on the plankton that’s been growing during the day. By studying these fish I was able to earn a Master’s degree.”

His intensive postgraduate studies next took him to the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara, where he pursued his Ph.D. by using an electron microscope to study how plants move sugars from leaf to root.

“But something else happened at UCSB in those years,” he pointed out. “The Revolutions of the Sixties were happening — the Environmental Revolution, the Black Revolution, the Brown Revolution, the Women’s Revolution, and the gay people were beginning to come out. It was an exciting time.”

It was during this time that Richard became more of a progressive, someone willing to stand up for social justice.

‘I completed my doctoral exams early in 1970,” Dr. Anderson continued. “But I had no job.  So I bought a restaurant for about $1,500. I learned another lesson — which is that running a small restaurant is really, really hard work, and takes up all your time seven days a week all day.”

In a sense, Richard had two separate restaurants.

“I had a gay coffee house which was open later at night. We served pie, ice cream, tea, and coffee. But we also had a restaurant open in the evenings, to serve food – brown rice with vegetables, and salad – you could get that for 99 cents. The specials were $1.10. The food was very simple, such as beef Stroganoff made with ground beef. I did that for a year. It was common for the food take to be all of $30 to $35 a night!”

The next turn in the career path took Dr. Anderson to La Mesa, California, where he taught full-time for a year at Grossmont College. Eventually, though, due to budget cuts and policy changes, he worked on a part-time basis for a few years before losing his position to a young woman.

“The school did the right thing,” he generously recalled.  “This was the era of the Women’s Revolution.  They needed to have youth, and they needed to have a woman!”

Undaunted by the loss of a job, and “excited by an opportunity to go to Belize with seven people to live there, and grow food,” he set out on his next great adventure — living off the land, far away from the United States and its consumer society.

“The atmosphere in Belize was completely relaxed,” he related. He loved the country and its people but found, “I learned that not only was I not strong enough to make it on my own, but I really learned an appreciation for water. If you don’t have water, you don’t have life. I owned a Mayan-dug well maybe a thousand feet away down a gentle slope on the property where I lived, so I’d go down there with a yoke and two buckets and trudge back up that hill with the water. So this notion of  turning on a tap for water and wasting it when we forget to turn it off – no, that experience made me into a water conservation fanatic. I learned many others lessons, too, including that I could not live in a non-technological society. I came back to the States to start up a new life.”

Landing back in California in 1980, Dr. Anderson studied for a time to become a nurse, pursuing an LVN degree at Columbia College, but eventually started teaching at the school since, with his Ph.D.,   “I could teach any biology class they wanted to assign to me.”

In the late 1980s, he returned to school to learn microbiology at UC Davis.

“That really enhanced my life, because now I could teach a broad range of subjects – microbiology, anatomy, physiology, and general biology. In 1989, I was hired at MJC, which was even better because I specialized in microbiology. I was able to make a film about the germ theory of disease on a sabbatical leave,” he mused. “In addition to getting the job, a couple of years later I married one of the biologists on the committee who had hired me – Lynn Hansen,” he added chuckling.  “That really changed everything for me!”

In the ensuing thirty years, Richard and his wife Lynn have traveled extensively, including to such far-flung destinations as the Galapagos Islands, the Antarctic, Tanzania, and Midway Island.

Following his retirement from MJC in 2009, Dr. Anderson redoubled his efforts in the community where he had taught and made a home with Ms. Hansen. This led to The Modesto Homeless Documentary Project.

“I spent most of my life in the Ivory Tower of academia so I felt the need to try to learn what’s going on outside,” he explained.

“There is such a homeless problem here. I hooked up with Frank Ploof, Leng Power, John Lucas, and Eric Caine, and we made a documentary on the homeless in Modesto up until 2018.” It’s at: https://youtu.be/PHauVTGXQsE

“It’s sort of a historical document because in the fall of 2018, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals passed a ruling on the Boise case that says you cannot cite people for camping in public unless there is enough sheltering available in that community. There are no metropolitan communities that have enough sheltering, and so that ruling caused the big changes that we’ve seen in Modesto.  We are now making a new movie that updates our area’s responses to the issue over the last few years. What our area has done in response is really quite complex. I know we’re not doing enough. More people are being added to the ranks of the homeless every year by all these powerful economic forces. I also want to complete my other video, which is called Here and Now: Local Climate Change Impacts.”

Dr. Anderson contributes impressively in other ways as well. With his video equipment in hand, he’s documented a plethora of local events, including poetry readings, candidate forums, and political rallies and marches. He’s interviewed numerous religious leaders and scientists and documented their thoughts on video.

He’s been a member of the League of Women Voters for many years, and has long served as a volunteer for the Modesto Peace & Life Center.  Recently, he and Ms. Hansen have been helping a family from Syria get established here in Modesto.

“I’ve learned a lot about Modesto and the Valley since I’ve been here, and met many wonderful people,” he reflected when asked about the Valley.  “Yes, we have our problems. But this is a very kind group of people that I know and with whom I work. It’s a welcoming place, in a way. Of course, a lot of it is having met Lynn, and married her, and becoming integrated into the community. That has really opened my eyes to all kinds of wonderful people. I’m just trying to help build that community that we all want to live in.”

RIP Richard: So long and so strong.

One of the most glaring omissions from last year’s 4Creeks investigation into Larry Byrd’s water use on the AB La Grange Ranch was any mention of the orchard on the Rairden property, where a total of seventy-two acres of almond trees are thriving and productive. The AB La Grange Ranch comprises two properties, known as the “Rodoni” and “Rairden” ranches.

A little over thirty acres of those almond trees on the Rairden property are within Modesto Irrigation District (MID) boundaries. Forty-two acres are outside those boundaries.

Very early on in the controversy about allegations that Byrd had been using in-district water on out-of-district trees, multiple sources said that Byrd’s electrical usage records would reveal how much water he pumped onto the orchards on the Rodoni and Rairden properties, where Byrd and his partners planted over five-hundred acres of almonds. After nine months of public inquiry and an investigation that took ten weeks, there are still no answers to how much MID surface water Byrd put onto his out-of-district trees.

Byrd claims he irrigated the out-of-district trees on the Rodoni property with groundwater pumped with a diesel pump. Byrd’s brother and partner, Tim Byrd, has said there was no meter on that diesel pump and therefore no way to measure how much groundwater went onto the out-of-district trees. The 4Creeks investigation concluded the out-of-district trees could not have been irrigated with groundwater from the diesel pump.

Todd Sill, who was ranch manager on the AB La Grange Ranch from 2016 until January of 2023, has said the diesel pump was “seldom” used and that there was a meter on it when he left the ranch. A co-worker is willing to support those claims. Sill also kept detailed records recording water use during his time as ranch manager. He’s willing to provide those records for public review.

One of Todd Sill’s first concerns after reading the 4Creeks report was the omission of any reference to irrigation on the seventy-two acres on the Rairden property.

“The pump for that deep well on the Rairden is an electric pump,” said Sill. “We hardly ever used that pump and the power records should show how little we used it and how much more we used the surface water pump.”

One would think that since the records for power usage on the Rairden would be definitive, both MID management and Byrd himself would be eager to provide them. Before the 4Creeks investigation, Byrd said he “looked forward” to clearing his name and had “nothing to hide.” Why then is he hiding his power usage records?

In response to a public records request for electrical power usage on the Rairden orchard sent last February, MID sent redacted reports. The man with “nothing to hide” chose to hide the truth. The omissions are damning.

Based on general rules-of-thumb, forty-two acres of almonds require a minimum of three acre-feet of water per year for mature trees. That’s roughly one-hundred twenty acre-feet per year. Thirty acres would require at least ninety acre-feet per year. Thus, seventy-two acres would require a little over two-hundred acre-feet per year, and more in years with excessive heat. Power records for the two electric pumps on the Rairden property should therefore reveal how much water was pumped onto the Rairden orchard, both in- and out-of-district.

Both Larry Byrd and MID management have a fiduciary obligation to account for water use throughout the district. Byrd sits on the MID Board of Directors. MID management has failed to provide data accounting for water use on the Rairden property, even though it has Byrd’s power usage records. Byrd’s claims about pumping groundwater from a diesel pump on the Rodoni property have been contradicted both by Todd Sill’s testimony and by the 4Creeks investigation. He and MID have refused to provide records for power use on the Rairden orchard.

The redacted copies of power and billing records for power usage on the Rairden property are full of black marks. Today, there are even more black marks on the reputations of Larry Byrd and MID management.