“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.