People who were there at the time say it was Hughson nurseryman John Duarte who first raised the “fringe parcel” distraction. Duarte was responding to claims Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Director Larry Byrd had misappropriated MID water for use on the AB La Grange Ranch he farms in southeastern Stanislaus County.
That was last year, not long after former Oakdale Irrigation District Director Linda Santos showed up at the July 8 MID Board meeting with aerial photos showing Byrd irrigated land outside MID boundaries. Ultimately, Santos’ claims led to an investigation by 4Creeks Engineering.
Since that time, Duarte and other Byrd supporters have insisted that it is the lack of a fringe parcel policy that has caused Byrd’s problems. The latest installment of the fringe parcel defense showed up in comments on a report by Trevor Morgan in the June 12 Modesto Bee. Morgan reported that MID Board President Robert Frobose had requested help from Attorney General Rob Bonta after Byrd had cast the deciding vote against further investigation last December.
MID management and the MID Board of Directors became dysfunctional shortly thereafter. Theretofore, the 4Creeks’ investigation had revealed conclusively that Byrd could not have irrigated his out-of-district trees with groundwater, as he had claimed.
Though Byrd’s vote against further research was a clear violation of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s guidelines for ethical government, the vote stood. Another Director, John Boer, also recused himself; he does contract work for Byrd’s brother, who is also a partner in the AB La Grange farming operation.
Most recently, someone using the alias “Johnny Guitar” raised the fringe parcel defense in comments under Morgan’s report:
“Any further investigation by any authority without an impartial and well defined MID Fringe-Parcel Policy would be an undeniable violation of the 14th amendment on the accused and worthy of civil litigation against the persecuting authorities.”
If you’ve read this far and find yourself wondering what fringe parcel policies and the 14th Amendment have to do with using MID surface water outside MID boundaries, you are not alone. In fact, most anyone with even a cursory acquaintance with MID irrigation policies has long since realized that the fringe parcel defense is irrelevant to the point of absurdity.
The nearby Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) calls properties that irrigate both inside and out-of-district crops “fringe parcels.” OID offers District surface water to farmers who wish to irrigate their out-of-district trees when such water is available. The available water is offered at higher prices than for in-district users.
MID does the same. The difference is that MID calls its policy the “Groundwater Replenishment Program” (GRP). Otherwise, MID defines its policy about surface water as, “water to be used within the district.” The literal definition of “allotment” in MID’s Rules and Regulations is as follows:
“(1.33) ‘Water Allocation’ means the quantity of water that is allocated annually by the Board for irrigation distribution to each acre of land within the District.” (boldface added)
The MID definition is clear, concise, and unambiguous, as required by California Water Law.
Those who raise the fringe parcel issue seem oblivious to a host of realities that make them and Larry Byrd look really, really, bad.
First and foremost, why would anyone suggest that an MID Director who spent thirty-five years working on Stanislaus County’s southeast side as a lineman and ditch tender be confused about MID boundaries and policies on that same southeast side?
After his career as a lineman and ditch tender, Byrd has spent another fifteen years on the MID Board of Directors. After fifty years at MID, how could Byrd possibly claim to be ignorant about MID boundaries and policies?
Moreover, in proffering the fringe parcel argument, Byrd’s supporters would seem to be admitting Byrd used MID surface water on out-of-district trees in obvious violation of a clear and unambiguous MID policy. In fact, they would seem to be grasping for excuses to defend Byrd.
Introducing irrelevancies into disputes is nothing new. The formal name for such usage is “non-sequitur.” When used to deflect attention, the irrelevancy is called a “red herring.” In studies of argumentation and logic, both the “non-sequitur” and red herring are classified as “fallacies.” When consciously used, the employment of such fallacies is considered unethical — kind of like when voting in your own interest is considered unethical.
Despite Byrd’s friend “Johnny Guitar” perverting its meaning, the 14th Amendment is relevant here because it’s based on principles of equality that have long been foundational to American aspirations for a more perfect union. Included in that foundation of values are cornerstones supporting the principle that no one is above the law. We strive to achieve the ideal that justice is blind to influences of power, position and wealth.
We all know these principles are too often abused. Nonetheless, the vast majority of us believe in them and strive to uphold them, even when power, position and wealth are determined to bend and break those same hallowed principles.
There is credible evidence that Larry Byrd has violated MID rules and regulations. MID farmers and ratepayers are entitled to an impartial investigation that determines the extent and costs, if any, of the violations. Larry Byrd himself is entitled to that same impartiality.
Let justice be served.