Modesto Irrigation shouldn’t make sweetheart deals with our precious water | Opinion

A dozen years ago, a hot debate raged across Modesto over the idea of selling a relatively small amount of irrigation water to San Francisco. Some saw the proposal as a convenient way to raise $115 million that could be used for much-needed upgrades and repairs to Modesto Irrigation District canals and pipelines.

Opponents saw it as giving away Modesto’s lifeblood, a precious and finite community resource — “our water.” They painted proponents as greedy traitors, and ultimately prevailed when then-board members, after nearly a year of arguing, finally agreed to drop it and forget the whole thing.

The most vocal opponent, board member Larry Byrd, crowed at the time about having “save(d) the community.”

Byrd, the current MID board president, now wants to sell far more water to farmers outside of MID boundaries on the east side of Stanislaus County, near his own ranch, at a price far below market value.

Opinion

For the sake of comparison, here are side-by-side basics of both proposals.

Amount — In 2011, 2,240 acre-feet of water, with potential for 25,000 acre-feet per year. Now, up to 60,000 acre-feet.

Selling price — In 2011, $700 per acre-foot. Now, $80 an acre-foot, decreasing to $60 the more the buyer takes.

Under Byrd’s leadership, MID is pitching this deal with a straight face because of one crucial factor: If used on orchards just outside the district, the water would seep down into an aquifer under the broader community. That’s much different than shipping it out of our basin, such as to the Bay Area.

This saving grace allows MID to call the proposal a variation on its Groundwater Replenishment Plan. Although that title is mostly a smokescreen for Byrd helping his buddies, it probably will be enough to win approval of the MID board majority in coming weeks.

Don’t give away the store, Modesto Irrigation District

The board also is painfully aware of impending state rules on groundwater, which historically has not been regulated. Allocating some Tuolumne River surface water to augment groundwater in our basin could strengthen the district’s position when defending its senior water rights.

Some terms of the proposed deal make sense. For example, the water would become available to east-side growers only in wet years, when all other MID growers get their full share. In the past 20 years, that would have happened in seven years, roughly a third of the time.

Also, buyers would pay for all connections needed to take the water, removing risk from current MID customers. That’s a must as well.

But under no circumstance should the board approve this sweetheart deal at $80 an acre-foot, decreasing to $60 after the first 12 inches. That’s giving away the store.

This handful of selected buyers currently feed their orchards with groundwater, or with surface water they buy from the Oakdale Irrigation District at $200 an acre-foot. That’s a reasonable indicator of market value. MID should ask for and receive no less.

Selling something like surface water that by definition belongs to all of us — a community resource — at a deep discount amounts to a gift of public funds. That’s an affront to all MID customers, which includes nearly everyone reading this because the utility supplies both drinking water and electricity in Modesto and several surrounding communities. The idea of gifting public funds to benefit a few should rankle everyone, and doing so would invite lawsuits challenging its legality.

East-v.-west feud bubbles up

Those favoring a sweetheart deal note that it will be expensive for buyers to add the infrastructure enabling them to take the water — connections to canals and pipelines, for example.

It’s a baseless argument. Factoring in those costs does not change the market value of a community resource.

Growers outside the district, or their forebears, paid much less for their land than those inside MID boundaries and have done nothing over the years and decades to contribute to the district’s well-being. Ignoring this huge cost-saving advantage requires willful ignorance.

These contentions and more surfaced in a June 26 workshop, bringing into the open a long-festering tug-of-war pitting MID’s water interests on the east end of the district against those on the west.

Drawing first blood was none other than Congressman John Duarte, whose nursery is on the east and who lobbed an assault against former state agriculture secretary Bill Lyons, whose ranch is on the west. Joining the fray were growers in both camps, four attorneys looking out for concerned clients, and Stanislaus County Supervisor Terry Withrow, a CPA whose clients include growers.

Duarte correctly observed this as “a hot and sticky issue.” He, Withrow and others also urged setting aside differences for the best of the district.

That’s a noble aim, and the answer is easy and obvious: Proceed with the sale at market value.

Lyons observed that the difference between the current proposal and the water’s true value means MID losing up to $7.2 million a year. Giving that away ranges somewhere between stupid and illegal.

How to fix water sale

If Byrd hopes to retain the community’s good will, he should cleanly, publicly and transparently explain all connections — business, political and otherwise — between himself and prospective east-end buyers. One attorney is on record challenging those relationships in board correspondence and meetings. The people deserve to know.

If board member John Boer hopes to retain support of the west-end growers he represents, he must clearly explain his position when it comes time to vote. A preliminary decision could come soon, kicking off environmental studies that could take several months to complete before the 2024 irrigation season.

If MID wants to retain credibility, it should present a plan to show how east-end groundwater levels increase because of the sale. That would introduce accountability. Otherwise, the board should drop the “groundwater replenishment” facade in favor of something closer to reality, like “undeserved handout.”

Above all, the district must drop the ill-conceived notion of shafting current customers by charging a ridiculously low price for something so precious.