The late Vance Kennedy was appalled when he learned thousands of acres of groundwater-dependent almond orchards were being planted on the rolling hills of Stanislaus County’s east side. Dr. Kennedy was an award-winning geologist whose entire career was the U.S. Geological Survey.
“That’s our savings account,” said Dr. Kennedy of one of the last viable aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley. “That’s our water bank in case of historic drought or another emergency.”
Even fifteen years ago, most every eastside farmer who planted groundwater-dependent trees knew there was a pull date on their orchards. With reliably high almond prices, their projected worst-case scenario was a short-term bonanza, followed by the inevitable depletion of the east side aquifer. The concept wasn’t much different than having a gold mine play out.
Some farmers knew from long experience and consultation with hydrologists that orchards near lakes, rivers and reservoirs would have an almost limitless supply of groundwater because lakes, rivers and reservoirs are major contributors to groundwater basins due to seepage — both vertical and horizontal — and flooding.
So when acre upon acre of nut trees were planted around Modesto Reservoir in southeastern Stanislaus County, insiders knew those trees were almost certainly thriving on seepage pumped from below the reservoir, seepage that in itself amounted to a below-ground reservoir of its own. What some people might not have known is that the seepage under the reservoir actually belongs to Modesto Irrigation District (MID) ratepayers.
The amount of that seepage, according to a recent study by the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Sustainability Agency (STRGBA), is stunning. Based on comparative studies and calculated estimates, that amount is 23,600 acre feet.
Looked at through the eyes of Vance Kennedy, that 23,600 acre-feet amounts to a savings bank with enough water to serve 47,200 urban households for a year (as a rule of thumb, one acre-foot of water will serve two urban households for one year). Currently, MID ratepayers in the City of Modesto pay an average of $67.12 per month for water — urban rates are higher than farm rates for multiple reasons, and especially because Modesto residents pay for purified surface water that is pumped from the reservoir through a water treatment plant. Due to a recent vote by the Modesto City Council, the monthly water rate for Modesto residents is expected to increase to $83.66 by 2027.
At $83.66 per month, the price per acre-foot of water for an average Modesto household would be $2007.84. Multiply that $2007.84 times the estimated 23,600 acre-feet below the Modesto Reservoir and you get $47,355,024. That’s a very substantial savings account.
Almond orchards use between three and four acre-feet of water per year. So 100 acres of almonds would use 300 acre-feet. 300 times $2007.84 comes to $600,252.00. That’s for one year of pumping.
No one, however, thinks farmers should pay urban rates for their water. For one thing, most everyone understands that higher water rates for farmers would mean higher food prices. No one wants higher food prices. Farmers also don’t receive treated water for their crops, for obvious reasons.
The MID Groundwater Replenishment Program offers a way for groundwater-dependent farmers — most of them on Stanislaus County’s east side — to keep farming while using groundwater at sustainable levels as dictated by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). MID set the price for its Groundwater Replenishment Program (GRP) at $200 per acre-foot. The GRP would provide surface water in years of above-average rainfall. The price was based on rates around the state; for example, farmers pay $350 an acre foot at Merced Irrigation District for a similar program.
Almond orchards generally have a productive life of around 18-20 years. They aren’t profitable the first three or four years because the trees are too young to produce. Production peaks at around 15 years. After that, the trees’ yield diminishes until maintenance costs exceed profits. That’s somewhere around 20 to 25 years.
At $200 per acre foot, 300 acre-feet of water amounts to $60,000. A ten-year old orchard might have cost upwards of $600,000 to irrigate at $200 per acre-foot. At $200 an acre-foot, an aging orchard could easily have cost well over a million dollars to irrigate during its life. Farmers pulling water from near lakes, rivers, and reservoirs pay nothing for that water.
Before he was elected to the MID Board of Directors, Larry Byrd spent most of his working years on the district’s east side, including around Modesto Reservoir. He worked as an MID lineman and ditch tender. At one point, he lived in a house on the reservoir.
Director Byrd has been a vociferous opponent of the $200 GRP price. Instead, he’s lobbied aggressively for a fee of $60 an acre foot.
When Byrd learned of the figure of 23,600 acre feet of seepage at a STRGBA meeting last Wednesday, July 16, he questioned its accuracy.
“That seems too high,” said Byrd. “I don’t remember that much leakage.”
It was an odd comment coming from an MID Director who might have been expected to have expressed concern about that leakage years ago, especially since it represents a significant loss of MID water — water which is then pumped into orchards without compensation for the MID ratepayers Director Byrd represents. Don’t MID Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to try to correct losses to the district?
Before he died, Vance Kennedy had been trying to alert local irrigation districts, county supervisors and city officials to the dangers and costs of groundwater pumping at least since 2012. In fact, when asked what the chances pumping around Modesto Reservoir were that the water was coming from the reservoir, Dr.Kennedy answered, “100 percent.” That was almost exactly ten years ago, in June of 2015.
Anyone wondering whether MID Director Byrd has, to our knowledge, never raised the issue of MID water lost to pumping around Modesto Reservoir might also be surprised to learn that the owner of the almond trees around the reservoir is partners with Director Byrd in the nearby AB Ranch, where Director Byrd has said he runs “deep well pumps almost daily” during warm weather, and, “sometimes daily.”
Among those few observers who know that Director Byrd’s partner, Tyler Angle, farms the trees around Modesto Reservoir, some think that fact indicates a conflict of interest for Director Byrd.
We just think people need to know.
Larry Byrd’s conflicts are being exposed like on a kiss cam at a Coldplay concert.
Imagine if a farmer on the other end of the district, received MID water that seeped into his aquifer. Now imagine that farmer were to pump the abundant groundwater and sell it elsewhere to thirsty westside water districts or large cities paying a premium. Larry Byrd would fight for every drop of MID water and demand the individual selling his ground water outside the District to compensate the District. I have heard him say as much. By the same token, Larry Byrd should be fighting for every drop of Modesto’s water and demand the farmer pumping the City’s water compensate the City.
If Director Larry Byrd does not think 23,600 acre feet of seepage is accurate, what does he believe to be the accurate number? He needs to quantify how much water he thinks is lost to seepage. Then he needs to acknowledge that the farmer pumping from the aquifer around the reservoir is accessing water Modesto previously paid for. And, finally, Director Byrd needs provide the terms of a settlement which rightfully restores the ratepayers the water that was siphoned off their account. That farmer needs to reimburse the City of Modesto.
The District Attorney needs to investigate this con artist.
Honestly, the City of Modesto needs to consider litigation. Can someone contact a water lawyer, like Rhonda Lucas, and ask her if the City has grounds for a lawsuit?
Having been the former General Counsel of MID and contracted to MID, any information they were aware of as an employee or contractor could surely be confidential and inadmissable. I’m sure MID would invoke ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
I mentioned Lucas as an example. Contact any water lawyer that MID does not have any previous contractual ties to. The City had a fiduciary responsibility to its domestic water ratepayers. We paid for a certain amount of acre feet, much like any farmer in the district. And if the neighboring property owner outside the district is accessing water a farmer previously paid for, their would be litigation or a negotiated settlement.
If nature takes it through evaporation, that is reasonably lost. If nature takes it by seepage into the aquifer that is reasonably understood and can be reclaimed by an adjacent City owned well in approximation to what was previously paid for. But a third party pumping is stealing. If this was cash in a bank or fuel stored in an underground tank, it would be obvious the third party in not entitled to it.
If everyone on the Eastside is pumping groundwater in 300′ wells while the farmer next to the reservoir is benefitting from water in an aquifer a mere 40′ – 60′ below, it is pretty obvious the aquifer is benefitting from the water Modesto ratepayers purchased and put in the reservoir.
I hear you and stand corrected. I am unable to edit previous comments. The water in the reservoir is MID water. Some of it will be pumped by the City and some to be distributed to farmers. But be certain, this is a reservoir, not a natural lake. That water is there entirely due to ratepayers in the district. Whether or not the District gets credit for charging the aquifer, the adjacent farmer outside the District is materially benefiting from proximity to water transported by MID.
If the MID board is not alarmed, I would hope the City of Modesto officials are. Urban ratepayer are paying for every acre foot delivered to the reservoir. Recognizing they are losing a considerable amount to seepage, the City should pump an equal amount to restore its full allotment.
The Modesto urban rate payers do not pay for the water that goes into Modesto reservoir. The urban rate payers pay for the water that comes from the water treatment plant which is separate from the irrigation water. Modesto’s aquifer is supposed to be getting a credit for the seepage water from the reservoir, the water should never be pumped by a farmer for free.
MID board members Frobose and Boer were definitely alarmed over Byrd’s actions in the June meeting. You should watch the board meeting of June 24, 2025.
You had it right up to “… the water should never be pumped by a farmer for free.” There is no regulatory mechanism in place in this area at this time. And plenty of landowners (not just farmers) will argue that their overlying right to pump is a property right. Other areas do have a pumping tax but that would apply to ALL of the straws in the ground including municipal and domestic. All of the eastside reservoirs (Modesto, Turlock and Woodward) leak at least 20,000 acre feet per year. This is accounted for in all 3 of the overlying GSP’s. The districts with unlined canals also get some credit for their recharge as well. There is no magic dye to put in the water that says “this water belongs to this source.” On the flipside, the rise and fall of the monitoring wells adjacent to these reservoirs could be correlated to the seepage.
Actually, according to Dr. Kennedy, it would be easy to inject a harmless tracer into the water so that reservoir water could be determined as the source for irrigation water that ends up on private property. The problem is that water law has not caught up with science, though the Scott River decision offers a gateway to a more just approach.
Spent a fair amount of time with him and heard him talk about using tritium levels as markers for age of groundwater. Must have missed the colorization of molecules for inter-aquifer transport.
Wouldn’t necessarily have to be “colorization.” However, as you say, Vance did know how to age groundwater as well. So the seepage water would be much younger than “historic” groundwater.
Byrd has declared himself the god of groundwater since he got on MID board. Him and his buddies drilled wells then got the well ordinance passed at the County in the name of SIGMA. They bought up or leased all of the eastside properties that were half in half out of MID or next to reservoir and canals and they planted thousands and thousands of trees . All of those trees went in after SIGMA. Why does he want eastside to get water for below cost? Why is Byrd the only farmer who always wants an uncapped allocation? Easy $$ in his pocket. While the rest of us play by the rules and pay our bills he wants his water for free.