Trevor Morgan’s stunning report that the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury began and then halted an inquiry into Larry Byrd’s irrigation records raised more questions than it answered. First and foremost, Modesto Irrigation District (MID) ratepayers and farmers need to know how and why a Grand Juror can order an investigation to be stopped.
Grand Juries are shrouded in secrecy. People don’t learn anything about their inquiries until they release an official report. In the Byrd case, all we know is that jurors began and then stopped an investigation.
The aborted investigation is eerily reminiscent of the 4Creeks’ report that investigated Byrd’s irrigation practices on the AB La Grange Ranch last year. Many readers of that report agree that it appears to have been truncated: The report begins and then stops suddenly, without coming to a conclusion. It doesn’t even draw obvious inferences. Nonetheless, the only logical conclusion to the 4Creeks’ report is that Byrd illegally irrigated out-of-district property with MID surface water.
Larry Byrd has been a member of the MID Board of Directors since 2011. Before that time, he served the district as a lineman and ditch tender for thirty-five years in the same area he now farms with his partners Ty Angle and his brother, Tim Byrd.
Questions rose about Byrd’s irrigation practices over a year ago, on July 8, 2025, when former Oakdale Irrigation District Director Linda Santos showed aerial photos revealing Byrd has almost 100 acres of almond trees outside MID boundaries. Byrd had always claimed all his farmed property was within the district.
The 4Creeks’ report confirmed Larry Byrd could not have irrigated his out-of-district trees with groundwater as he had previously claimed. It also revealed discrepancies between Byrd’s reported water usage and power records recording that same usage.
When MID Board President Robert Frobose reviewed the 4Creeks’ report, he realized it had revealed evidence that needed to be developed and amplified so that the scope of Byrd’s malfeasance could be accurately determined. Director Chris Ott concurred.
Last December 16, during a vote on whether to continue the investigation, Larry Byrd voted against the motion to continue. That vote is now under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission. Director John Boer, who works for Tim Byrd, recused himself from voting, thereby preventing the investigation from going forward.
Subsequent to the 4Creeks’ report, further investigation has revealed Larry Byrd appears to have been billed for far less MID water than he used, not only on the AB La Grange Ranch but also on at least seven other properties. In many cases, Byrd’s irrigation reports aren’t just irregular, they’re preposterous.
Consider, for example, the simple case of fifty acres of pastureland. After an inquiry about Byrd’s “Master Water Plan,” hereafter referred to as his “Master Water Account,” MID responded with heavily redacted records from 2022.
I was able to infer the content of the redacted records based on knowledge gained from previous public records requests. I then learned that Byrd had been billed for two acre-feet of water for fifty acres of pastureland. Any local farmer will tell you that pastureland can’t produce on two acre-feet of water. In fact, pastureland in Stanislaus County typically needs more than the three-and-a-half acre-feet almonds require. Incidentally, Byrd was also billed for two acre-feet for his almond orchards.
The 4Creeks’ report showed Byrd used almost three-and-a-half acre-feet on his almonds in 2022, yet he was billed for only two acre-feet. Those discrepancies alone should have showed up on even the most cursory audit and triggered alarms.
In fact, one of the more puzzling questions during this yearlong Byrd investigation is the diffidence of MID General Manager Jimi Netniss. Prior to his promotion to General Manager, Netniss was Assistant General Manager of Finance. Among his areas of expertise were budget and rates. How on earth could Netniss have justified Larry Byrd’s reduced rates in 2022, when the MID water allotment was thirty inches, 4Creeks reported he used 40.37 inches, and he was billed for twenty-four inches?
There are countless other incriminating reports detailing Director Byrd’s reported irrigations. On the 50 acres of pastureland, for example, the record shows only one irrigation cycle. That’s right, Larry Byrd submitted a report that said (1) he irrigated 50 acres of pastureland with only 100 acre-feet of water and (2) he applied that water all in one session.
A simple audit would have revealed discrepancies in Larry Byrd’s irrigation and billing records years ago. Both an audit and Grand Jury report could potentially explain the discrepancies. As things now stand, both Byrd and MID management have run from the truth. Now, the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury has joined the cover-up.
The Modesto Irrigation District is a public utility. Its customers deserve transparent accounting and clear explanations of evidence that strongly suggests Larry Byrd has misappropriated MID surface water. Some estimates have concluded millions of dollars are involved.
The public has a right to know. The public has a right to know why MID management refuses to manage, and why the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury ran from the truth.
Who will tell the people?
Apparently, this is the 2nd Grand Jury investigation into MID in the last 3 years. Same result. Mysterious cessation of investigation.
If they aren’t going to hold him accountable, they overcharged everyone else, who now deserve proportional refunds & should demand them.
Thank you, Eric, for your continued reporting of this scandal. Why would such forces be marshaled to snuff out investigations of Byrd’s apparent water theft? Why have some of his fellow MID board members, John Duarte, and now a county grand jury stopped,, sometimes dead in their tracks, investigations into the truth? Don’t these people want the truth? It’s clear they don’t.
It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to suspect that the Byrd case might be the tip of an iceberg. Have other, larger ag interests been stealing water and ripping off the public, too? Are these larger interests worried that a Byrd investigation, if allowed to continue, would prompt additional audits? Does this explain, in part at least, the repeated attempts to nip this investigation in the bud, to kill it on the vine? Something is rotten in Denmark, very rotten indeed.
Telling is Byrd’s remarks when this issue was coming into public view, “Do you really want to open a can of worms?”. I have my own opinion of what Byrd was referring to. I will let others come up with their own interpretation.
Director Byrd cautioned about the “can of worms,” but Director Keating followed those with her own asking farmers in the room if they would want similar scrutiny. It was like a threat.
Eric, you neglected to mention that the District Attorney Jeff Laugero also turned down any investigation. Is the DA not interested in potential massive fraud on ratepayers by our public utility? Be careful where your fingerprints might appear Jeff.
Laurence: Was not aware DA declined to investigate. Where did you find this out?
One doesn’t need to be out of the district or have a fringe parcel to take water that was not meant for them. It happens in-district as well. Staff rarely wants to go through the trouble or scrutiny of proving the case but rumors and stories persist. Nothing worse than an adversarial relationship between a grower and the person controlling their water – and it goes both ways. Comments like “can of worms”, “glass houses” and “poop in your own nest” come to mind.
Can we request an investigation at the state level? It seems like some individuals have too much power at the city or county level.
Is the same irrigating practice going on now – this summer?
WJ Calkins: MID Board President Robert Frobose has requested help from our State Attorney General. In that request, he’s included voluminous documentation showing evidence of fraud. It would help greatly if local citizens contacted their city councilmembers, mayors, and county supervisors with requests to investigate. MID should not be the private watering trough for directors and wealthy farmers with undue political influence.