July 14, Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) General Manager Steve Knell circulated a letter defending the district’s business plan. OID is embroiled in a lawsuit involving the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), water sales, and a controversial fallowing program. Knell is on a campaign to justify out-of-district sales and the soundness of the business plan.
For Knell, the biggest selling point of the OID business plan is the provision of water to district farmers at below the cost of delivery. OID manages this mathematical magic by generating revenue from water sales outside the district—most often to Westlands Water District.
Lately, though, the water sales are in jeopardy. Local farmers Louis Brichetto and Robert Frobose have objected to the sales on grounds they send water out of the district and jeopardize groundwater supplies. They claim OID must perform environmental impact reviews before selling water.
On the advice of water attorney Tim O’Laughlin, OID terminated a proposed water sale last year because the district had been challenged on its failure to observe CEQA protocols. Now, the district is arguing the water sales and fallowing program that makes water available have no environmental impacts.
In the real world, the argument would have no standing—sending water south affects any number of things, not the least of which is the San Joaquin Delta ecosystem. The water world, however, has long been subject to different rules. Those long-standing standards have changed rapidly of late, however.
On August 1, a group of commercial fishermen won a key court ruling by insisting the state must give “full and meaningful consideration” to reducing contractual obligations to send water south. The basis for the case was the health of the Delta and the viability of the fisheries that depend on it.
But even while better understanding of the Delta ecosystem is driving decisions about water use, more and more people are asking why farmers should get water at below the cost of delivery. OID’s neighbor, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), is being sued for subsidizing farm water costs by overcharging its electric customers.
Booming agricultural profits and a growing export monoculture—nuts, nuts, and more nuts—have made many of farming’s catchy slogans and PR campaigns obsolete. By the time “We Farm, You Eat” appears on billboards along Highway 99, viewers have passed so many acres of almond groves they’ve begun to wonder whether Valley farmers produce anything else. Ag profits are way up, and in some regions farmland acreage is growing. Sympathy for the family farmer is giving way to ire at farmers’ continuing demands for subsidized water.
Knell said recently that ongoing lawsuits could have a “chilling effect” on water sales. Like many, he seems to think CEQA regulations are frivolous.
But the recent drought has brought a new world and new rules to water. The major changes in the game involve groundwater, and it’s an especially relevant to OID, where farmers have planted thousands of acres of nut-bearing trees both within the district and in its sphere of influence. Keeping the water OID wants to sell in the region makes sense, especially since many of the new orchards rely heavily on groundwater.
In recent years, OID itself has pumped record and near-record amounts of groundwater. Knell tried to conceal that fact by publishing OID’s average amounts pumped over a span of years, but watchdogs on social media called him out when they pointed out how much OID has pumped lately.
One of the most disturbing things about Knell’s arguments in favor of selling water is his insistence there’s no local demand or no way to deliver OID water locally. In an especially egregious fit of pique, Knell recently barred surface water deliveries to Louis Brichetto, most likely because of his part in the lawsuit against OID.
Brichetto, a long-time proponent of keeping surface water local, is one of many farmers who planted orchards in the foothills of eastern Stanislaus County. Whenever possible, he buys surface water in lieu of pumping groundwater.
In 2012, Stockton East Water District (SEWD) agreed to deliver water to land Brichetto owns within OID’s sphere of influence. At the time, Steve Knell wrote, “OID has no conflict with SEWD providing Mr. Louis Brichetto water for his 318 acres.”
Just recently, however, Knell decided to invoke conditions of an agreement made earlier this year between OID and SEWD regarding temporary water transfer agreements. In essence, the districts agreed to seek mutual approval for local water transfers. Last month, Knell revoked his 2012 approval of Brichetto’s contract with SEWD.
Following as it does hard upon last year’s secret water sale to the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Knell’s action can be seen only as a vindictive reprisal for Brichetto’s part in the CEQA lawsuit.
Louis Brichetto isn’t the only person facing reprisals for questioning OID’s business practices. In June, OID sued two of its own board members, allegedly for conflicts of interest and for undermining OID’s CEQA lawsuit by providing sworn statements to a judge.
The board members, Gail Altieri and Linda Santos, are newcomers to the OID Board of Directors after lop-sided victories in the last board election. Santos and Altieri’s sins seem to have arisen after they suggested OID perform required CEQA protocols prior to water sales. They also complained they were not fully informed about details of OID’s controversial fallowing program.
OID’s reprisals against Brichetto and the new board members amount to a last gasp from a bygone world where water flowed “uphill toward money and power.” New groundwater rules have revealed the fundamental flaws in OID’s business plan. There’s no way out-of-district water sales can proceed without CEQA review, and no way the public will continue to countenance water subsidies for farmers.
Not yet quite extinct, the Oakdale Irrigation District’s failure to adapt to changing conditions in the new world of water has put it on the endangered species list. Totalitarian rule of public agencies could only succeed when the public was kept in the dark. OID and a few others may be slow to see it, but the light of a new day is shining on policies possible only in a world gone by.
great article, sure hope this gets out to the masses who think Knell is doing a great job.
They need to clear out the rest of the good ol boys …..then we’ll be in better shape
This article is very short on any real facts. Lots of opinions and claims made by the author without the documentation to back it up. No interviews or comments from the opposition. Sounds to me like another piece submitted by Santos and blindly reprinted by a lazy journalist. Why can’t so called journalists actually do their homework and investigate a story? There are a lot of facts missing in this hit piece! Like that fact that the lawsuit was only filed after OID declined to give a water contract to Brichetto for 3700 acres outside the district. He, wanted it without paying 11 million dollars in annexation fees, and be put ahead of all the customer in delivery rights, plus it would also increase his property value by about $10,000 per acre. That is the kind of sweetheart deal Santos wanted OID to enter into. Lots of politics and financial games being played here, so don’t believe everything you read! Find out the facts for yourself, don’t truth a “journalist” to give them to you.
Mr. Schaafsma: In the future I probably won’t print screeds from people who can’t distinguish fact from opinion. I believe doing so serves projects of disinformation. However, in the interest of entertaining our readers, I have listed just a few facts in my short article. There are more, but I’m busy with other things. Since you seem to have an interest in such things, I suggest you (1) read up on what constitutes a “fact,” then (2) calculate a ratio of facts to sentences in both our writings. Part (1) will probably be your biggest challenge. Some rainy day it might also behoove you to ponder (1) inference and (2) relevance. Enjoy.
Here is a list of facts from my story: (1) Steve Knell circulated a letter July 14. It was distributed by Walter Ward, Stanislaus County’s Water Resources manager. I have a copy. (2) OID is currently involved in a CEQA lawsuit. (3) OID sells water outside the district. (4) Water sales are in jeopardy lately. (5) Louis Brichetto and Robert Frobose object to the water sales on the grounds cited. (6) OID terminated a sale last year on the advice of water attorney Tim O’Laughlin. (7) OID has argued that the current plans for a fallowing program and water sale have no negative impacts (Negative Declaration). (8) Brichetto and Frobose argue OID must do an EIR prior to fallowing program. (9) Fishermen did win the lawsuit in August. (10) Modesto Irrigation District is being sued. (11) Agricultural profits are up. (12) Agricultural acreage is growing in some places, e.g., Stanislaus County (13) Steve Knell CEQA lawsuits could have a “chilling effect” on water sales. (14) Farmers have planted tens of thousands of acres of nut-bearing orchards (15) In recent years, OID has pumped record and near-record amounts of groundwater (16) Steve Knell invoked a recent contract condition with SEWD and barred deliveries of water to land owned by Louis Brichetto. (17) In 2012, SEWD agreed to deliver surface water to land owned by Louis Brichetto. (18) In 2012, Steve Knell wrote OID had no conflict with delivering water to Louis Brichetto’s land (19) OID did conduct a secret water sale last year; Mr. Knell admitted as much. (20) Louis Brichetto isn’t the only person facing reprisals. (21) Altieri and Santos are being sued by OID. (22) Altieri and Santos did say they were not fully informed about the fallowing program.
You make a nice list of things that have happened but you make no effort to look for the reasons WHY they happened. A list, out of context, can look ominous. Have you bothered to ask questions and get to the bottom of the “why”? Oh, excuse me… yes, you said you were too busy doing other things!
For example, there is no “fallowing” program, there is a “water conservation” program. That is the way it was worded in the original proposal. Santos and Altieri call it a fallowing program to suit their purposes. If either of them would ever take a meeting with the GM of OID to find out about the day to day workings of OID maybe they would know what is going on? They have refused to meet with him, even though he has offered to meet with them regularly, since they took office last December. Did you know that? Do you even care?
Do your homework! 21 items left to go…
“Dave”: Please don’t confuse our roles. It is not my job to keep spinning for OID. That’s YOUR job and I know it don’t come easy. It is not Santos and Altieri calling it a fallowing program; it is everyone who is acquainted with it. For example, Garth Stapley, among a host of others: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/oakdale/article79455187.html
Keep those comments coming. You are the best advertisement for what OID is all about we could ask for, “Dave.”
The bottom? It’s about selling water.
Oh please… do your homework! That does mean reading another article by somebody else that didn’t ask questions either! Garth didn’t ask one question of any body except Santos.
The bottom… its about providing a service to your customers at the best and fairest possible price. If there is excess water, I guess you would rather flush it down the delta. OID’s infrastructure is around 100 years old, who do you suppose will pay for the upgrades and repairs? Because of the sale of excess water the money for those repairs is available.
Dave: As I mentioned earlier, I ordinarily don’t print screeds featuring the kinds of tactics you employ, mostly because the proper forum for such stuff is daytime radio. For example, every time I rebut one of your claims, you change the subject, hoping my readers have no attention span. Dave, they have an attention span. When I listed the facts in my article, you said they “were things that happened.” Yes, Dave, we call “things that happened” FACTS. Then you tried to switch to context. Here’s a context: You insinuate that Brichetto’s lawsuit was the result of being denied annexation earlier this year. How then do you explain last year’s lawsuit on the same grounds? You object to the use of the term “fallowing” to describe a fallowing program and when I demonstrate it’s commonly used, you change the subject by claiming Mr. Stapley talked only to Linda Santos (demonstrably false if you read the article). Any thinking person would know you have no way of knowing who Mr. Stapley talked to, but you are not addressing your remarks to thinking people. “Condescension”? Dave, you called me “lazy.” You suggested Linda Santos wrote the article. I’m being polite, Dave, mostly because it’s quite clear from your remarks you can’t help yourself. Keep in mind you need The Valley Citizen more than the The Valley Citizen needs you, but why should The Valley Citizen contribute to the degenerate decline of discourse? Our target audience does not include people whose unearned certainty derives from a boundless incapacity for reason. As I said, you have provided our readers a moment of amusement, but now your time is up. Bye Dave.
It’s a list of FACTS Dave. Keep in mind my readers are smart enough to know when you are playing with words. First you claimed the article was short on facts, now you are attempting to shift the terms of discourse to context. When you attempt to change the terms of discourse, you have implicitly admitted your claim about a factual shortage was erroneous. Of course, “Dave,” once context does become a point of contention, you lose as well. Hope your “Dave” persona holds up.
My name is real and I am a land owner in District 4. Context means everything… facts with out context are meaningless. Being condescending only shows your lack of professionalism…
Mr. Caine, you tend to discredit your own arguments by your lack of respectful debate with those who disagree with you or challenge you. I admire the clarity of your writing and presentation of your arguments, but when you demean and disdain your opponents, it actually tends to weaken your own position.
By the way, the definition of “screed” (a word you seem to favor in demeaning Mr. Schaafsma, who I do not know) is “a long speech or piece of writing, typically one regarded as tedious”. While I realize that your original post is not to be considered a news item, but–instead–your own well-stated editorial opinion, it could also be considered by some to fit the very definition of “screed”.
You’ll probably choose to attack me for even bringing this up, but I hope it’s something you will think about in the future.
Mr Barton: Asking me to respond civilly to Mr. Schaafsma’s comments is like asking someone who’s been kicked in the groin to compliment his assailant’s taste in footwear. Mr. Schfaafsma indulged in name-calling, character assassination (he called me “lazy” and he suggested Ms. Santos wrote the article; he also said Ms. Santos wanted to enter into a “sweetheart deal” with Mr. Brichetto), cited demonstrable falsehoods (he said the article is short on facts and said Mr. Stapley talked only to Ms. Santos), employed the red herring tactic when I rebutted his claims (he changed the terms of discourse to “context”), and ignored the point of my article in favor of an ad hominem rant. Since you seem to be a sincere and intelligent man, your characterization of his remarks as those of someone who disagrees with me is puzzling. He didn’t address the thrust of the article, he avoided it. He didn’t offer disagreement, he offered invective. As for your comment about the (lack of) news in the article, to the best of my knowledge I am the first to break the news of Mr. Knell’s decision to cut off Mr. Brichetto’s water. The real issue here is your facile employment of a double standard. You seem willing to excuse Mr. Schfaafsma’s low tactics even while asking me to observe a higher standard of discourse. Maybe that’s something you will choose to think about in the future. I wish you well even as we disagree about the proper response to low blows. I hope some day we can share a laugh.
Well said, and thanks for the response. I will certainly think about what you’ve had to say, and wish you well in the future. And yes–let’s share a laugh together sometime. Sounds good to me.
Thank you Don. More to come.