Longtime Modesto Irrigation District Board member John Mensinger announced recently he would be stepping down from the board. Thus far, the only declared candidate for his position is Frank Damrell, former Senior District Representative to Cathleen Galgiani when she was a State Senator.
Mensinger’s term was stormy, with board members disagreeing about water sales, electricity rates and lawsuits. In one recent lawsuit, female members of the district’s legal department accused Mensinger of, “gender discrimination, retaliation and more.” The district settled the case without admission of wrongdoing by Mensinger.
Any new board members will face a host of problems, some of them ongoing over decades. MID has never managed to separate costs of delivering electricity from costs of delivering water, and that failure alone has made the district look incompetent and vulnerable to charges of fraud and dysfunction.
Now, with drought looking like the new norm, MID and other local districts will have to contend with the ongoing drawdown of the Modesto Subbasin, which some estimates show has a deficit of over 135,000 acre feet of water during recent years.
Largely due to the proliferation of groundwater-dependent orchards on Stanislaus County’s east side, the deficit threatens the viability of the last remaining sustainable aquifer in the San Joaquin Valley. When farmers on the east side planted almonds and walnuts in the rolling hills that formerly supported grazing cattle, they claimed there was water enough if local districts didn’t transfer water outside the region.
In 2012, public outcry prevented MID from selling water to the Bay Area, but even during the ensuing drought, the nearby Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) continued promoting water sales until it ran into legal opposition that stalled its marketing strategy.
Some farmers like the water sales because they enable local farm water to be priced below the cost of delivery. Even without water sales, local farmers get water at very low rates; some studies have shown that customers for MID power subsidize district farmers’ irrigation water.
There’s also the developing problem of water sales on the Mapes Ranch, where the public interest and commodification of water may collide and threaten to go nuclear.
In 1983, Bill Lyons Sr, owner of the Mapes Ranch, formed an agreement with MID that entitled owners of the ranch to “use any and all water flowing into and through the Mapes Ranch from the District’s canals and drains for any purpose of owner.” In a recent letter to MID, Ronda Lucas, the district’s former General Counsel, referred to the water as “gift water” because the district receives no benefit from delivering water to the Mapes Ranch — it’s water that isn’t paid for.
Lucas also noted that in April of 2021, Mapes Ranch agreed to sell 10,000 acre feet of water to the Del Puerto Water District for $425 an acre foot. Last April, Mapes Ranch and Del Puerto Water District extended the agreement for another year. Sales over the two years amount to approximately $8.5 million.
On June 6, Del Puerto Water District “filed a notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration with the County of Stanislaus on the Del Puerto Water Sale.” Part of the notice reads, “besides being bordered on three sides with perennial rivers, Mapes Ranch receives surface flows, tailwater and operational spills from Modesto Irrigation District canals.”
Mapes Ranch’s abundance of groundwater is due to its proximity to three major waterways — the Tuolumne, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers. Water in those rivers is a public resource and should not be appropriated for private gain. Recent research shows that, “Pumping large amounts of groundwater over a short period can be harmful. Natural waterways can begin to empty. And that can hurt freshwater ecosystems.”
Hydrologists have long known that pumping near rivers, lakes and reservoirs draws from those sources of water. Instead of agreeing to a mitigated negative declaration for the Mapes’ water sales, Stanislaus County should demand a full Environmental Impact Review of the effects of pumping groundwater on nearby rivers. MID should also review its agreement with the Mapes Ranch and be forced to justify how that agreement serves the public interest.
Beginning in the 19th century with George Lux, Henry Miller and James Haggin, the San Joaquin Valley has a long history of appropriation of water by profit-seeking entrepreneurs. As we enter a new era of prolonged drought and climate change, the public interest should be the first party to be served by public resources, especially life-giving water.
Well put, Eric. Thank you so much for your sharing of important facts. People need to hear this!
This issue of whether or not the electricity customers are subsidizing those recipients of ground water has been a topic for the board members over several years. Keeping in mind that the majority of the MID Board of Directors is comprised of farmers so one would not be surprised to hear that it has not gotten the attention that it needs to conduct a simple study to determine actual costs for both services. The common reply to the question of costs is that “the canals and electrical infrastructures, i.e. poles and lines, share common assets that cannot be easily divided.” Ask any accountant who knows anything about “cost accounting” and they will tell you this is nonsense. Private and public entities know their costs of goods and services sold in order to determine pricing for those goods and services. A “fair market value” for those shared assets (land) can be determined easily. Overhead costs (insurance, office, management, taxes, etc) can be distributed to the various “cost centers” in order to allocate costs appropriately. Hire some cost accountants and when Mapes Ranch receives “free” water we then know what it is costing MID electricity customers.
The law favors landowners, stewards of the land. Unfortunately, present day stewards do not care whether future generations will have water. Business people will always maximize profits when the opportunity arises. Thus, all activities of the owners of Mapes ranch are legal and in accordance with normal business practices.
Given the location of the ranch and being surrounded on three sides by water, the ranch owner would have great trouble forseeing any shortage of water. In wet years, the ranch is often under threat of inundation of water.
Thus, water regulation must be done by governmental authorities. Government is responsible for determining water allocations and use. If MID or the State Water Board are allowing Mapes Ranch to sell water outside the basin, they are responsible for any shortages that will occur now and in the future. It is unreasonable to expect one land owner to know and understand the hydrology of an entire region.
One would hope that the owner of Mapes Ranch would not use undue influence on water use policy makers. If he does, then he would share in the responsibility for future water shortage.
Unfortunately, the law will not hold to account those who presently cause damage to future generations.
This article does a great job of identifying the need for greater oversight of regional water utilization. If MID does not start doing a better job, the State may eventually assume the role and impose restrictions that all of us are not going to like.
So Mapes Ranch is making money a lot of money off selling the water and the rest of us are left to cut back due to water shortages am I correct.
I’m sorry Bruce but we all know how the owner of Mapes Ranch works and he knows exactly what he is doing. Why in 1983 did they think this was a good idea and why hasn’t or isn’t something being done to correct this problem?
No one is asking regulators to do anything about Mapes water business practices. I don’t know what the owner of Mapes knows, so I will make no assumptions.
Unless political action is started by caring folks like you,
Action is not likely until faucets go dry. Then, it will be too late.
Large parts of the valley, especially around Tulare, are completely out of water.
I am trying to explain why things are the way they are, not defending the present state of affairs.
Just because this ranch is downstream of much of the county, it should not be allowed to pump as much water as it wants. It is my understanding that it is still upstream of the intake for the California Water Project aqueduct that goes to LA. And, there are wildlife areas nearby.
Mining the underground aquafer for water is dangerous as the delta needs a continuous source of fresh water to flush pollution and salt away. Once the water from the aquafer is reduced salt can intrude and it can even cause subsidence of the land. The surface of the land moving even closer to sea level. Profit is an important incentive for getting things done. But, destruction of land and the aquafer are long lasting effects that should not be tolerated by anyone.
Action is needed on this issue before irreparable harm is done. This is not the time to think we live in a cowboy world.