People who were there at the time say it was Hughson nurseryman John Duarte who first raised the “fringe parcel” distraction. Duarte was responding to claims Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Director Larry Byrd had misappropriated MID water for use on the AB La Grange Ranch he farms in southeastern Stanislaus County.
That was last year, not long after former Oakdale Irrigation District Director Linda Santos showed up at the July 8 MID Board meeting with aerial photos showing Byrd irrigated land outside MID boundaries. Ultimately, Santos’ claims led to an investigation by 4Creeks Engineering.
Since that time, Duarte and other Byrd supporters have insisted that it is the lack of a fringe parcel policy that has caused Byrd’s problems. The latest installment of the fringe parcel defense showed up in comments on a report by Trevor Morgan in the June 12 Modesto Bee. Morgan reported that MID Board President Robert Frobose had requested help from Attorney General Rob Bonta after Byrd had cast the deciding vote against further investigation last December.
MID management and the MID Board of Directors became dysfunctional shortly thereafter. Theretofore, the 4Creeks’ investigation had revealed conclusively that Byrd could not have irrigated his out-of-district trees with groundwater, as he had claimed.
Though Byrd’s vote against further research was a clear violation of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s guidelines for ethical government, the vote stood. Another Director, John Boer, recused himself; he does contract work for Byrd’s brother, who is also a partner in the AB La Grange farming operation.
Most recently, someone using the alias “Johnny Guitar” raised the fringe parcel defense in comments under Morgan’s report:
“Any further investigation by any authority without an impartial and well defined MID Fringe-Parcel Policy would be an undeniable violation of the 14th amendment on the accused and worthy of civil litigation against the persecuting authorities.”
If you’ve read this far and find yourself wondering what fringe parcel policies and the 14th Amendment have to do with using MID surface water outside MID boundaries, you are not alone. In fact, most anyone with even a cursory acquaintance with MID irrigation policies has long since realized that the fringe parcel defense is irrelevant to the point of absurdity.
The nearby Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) calls properties that irrigate both inside and out-of-district crops “fringe parcels.” OID offers District surface water to farmers who wish to irrigate their out-of-district trees when such water is available. The available water is offered at higher prices than for in-district users.
MID does the same. The difference is that MID calls its policy the “Groundwater Replenishment Program” (GRP). Otherwise, MID defines its policy about surface water as, “water to be used within the district.” The literal definition of “allotment” in MID’s Rules and Regulations is as follows:
“(1.33) ‘Water Allocation’ means the quantity of water that is allocated annually by the Board for irrigation distribution to each acre of land within the District.” (boldface added)
The MID definition is clear, concise, and unambiguous, as required by California Water Law.
Those who raise the fringe parcel issue seem oblivious to a host of realities that make them and Larry Byrd look really, really, bad.
First and foremost, why would anyone suggest that an MID Director who spent thirty-five years working on Stanislaus County’s southeast side as a lineman and ditch tender be confused about MID boundaries and policies on that same southeast side?
After his career as a lineman and ditch tender, Byrd has spent another fifteen years on the MID Board of Directors. After fifty years at MID, how could Byrd possibly claim to be ignorant about MID boundaries and policies?
Moreover, in proffering the fringe parcel argument, Byrd’s supporters would seem to be admitting Byrd used MID surface water on out-of-district trees in obvious violation of a clear and unambiguous MID policy. In fact, they would seem to be grasping for excuses to defend Byrd.
Introducing irrelevancies into disputes is nothing new. The formal name for such usage is “non-sequitur.” When used to deflect attention, the irrelevancy is called a “red herring.” In studies of argumentation and logic, both the “non-sequitur” and red herring are classified as “fallacies.” When consciously used, the employment of such fallacies is considered unethical — kind of like when voting in your own interest is considered unethical.
Despite Byrd’s friend “Johnny Guitar” perverting its meaning, the 14th Amendment is relevant here because it’s based on principles of equality that have long been foundational to American aspirations for a more perfect union. Included in that foundation of values are cornerstones supporting the principle that no one is above the law. We strive to achieve the ideal that justice is blind to influences of power, position and wealth.
We all know these principles are too often abused. Nonetheless, the vast majority of us believe in them and strive to uphold them, even when power, position and wealth are determined to bend and break those same hallowed principles.
There is credible evidence that Larry Byrd has violated MID rules and regulations. MID farmers and ratepayers are entitled to an impartial investigation that determines the extent and costs, if any, of the violations. Larry Byrd himself is entitled to that same impartiality.
Let justice be served.
Using the “fringe parcel” argument to steal and use water out of the District is like robbing a bank on Tuesday and saying you didn’t do anything wrong because the law only says “you can’t rob the bank” it doesn’t mention anything about Tuesday. Duarte being voted out of congress after 2 short years is now obvious the voters got it right.
Oakdale has a fringe parcel policy that defines the amount of water that could be feasibly used on an acre of a specific in district crop. If the water use on a fringe parcel is more than what could have been used on the in district planted acreages, then the user is determined to be utilizing water on out of district plantings.
This policy does not require the OID to spend sixty thousand dollars on outside investigations that it then discards. Nor does OID need bother grand juries, atty gens, or selected political opponents with endless investigations.
This is very similar to the approach that Frobose has attempted and failed to apply to director Byrd. Having a policy structure rather than empowering the sitting Board President to selectively harass political parties is generally a feature of good governance.
Mr. Duarte: You are missing the point (the formal name is ignoratio elenchi). Larry Byrd used MID surface water out-of-district. He had no right to do so, any more than he has a right to sell MID water. The Nichols case determined absolutely that the MID Board of Directors is the sole authority for application of surface water. Moreover, MID’s own records as produced by the 4Creeks’ investigation show Director Byrd was billed for less water than he pumped. The investigation was not “discarded.” Larry Byrd voted to end the investigation in a clear conflict of interest. Director Frobose did not “selectively” harass anyone. He responded responsibly to substantial evidence implicating Director Byrd in misappropriation of water. The 4Creeks’ report supported and amplifed that evidence with specific detail. It is MID’s mission to regulate the use of MID water fairly for everyone. MID has a clear, concise, unambiguous and fair policy structure. Larry Byrd violated that structure.
Byrd is the one that has failed to provide any factual or credible evidence that he has not been stealing from the ratepayers. He has failed to show he is doing his fiduciary responsibility in protecting the ratepayers as a Director. Frobose and Ott have shown they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility.
There is a current story in the news about a guy that fell into the poop of a portable toilet trying to retrieve his sunglasses. Your “fringe parcel” policy argument is Byrd’s sunglasses. Keep digging in Duarte.
Not only is the ” fringe parcel ” argument frivolous but it didn’t take into account that it would be later discovered that Byrd is stealing from the ratepayers on the land inside the district. And Johnny Guitar-LB can’t play a tune.
Hear, hear.
Byrd and the Duartes exemplify what’s wrong with this country: a whole lotta people who think they’re entitled to extra privileges because–fill in some stupid excuse here–and laws don’t apply to them. People of this sort need to have the law applied to them exactly as stringently as it is to anyone else. Government (that’s you and me) have been FAR too patient and lenient with people who know very well what the law is and choose to ignore it.
Byrd and the Duartes exemplify what’s wrong with this country: they believe they are entitled to extra privileges because (fill in self-serving excuse here) and the law doesn’t apply to them. The government–that’s you and me–have been far too patient and lenient with their ilk for far too long. Byrd should be stripped of his position adjudicating rules he clearly doesn’t respect for abusing his position and for self-dealing and denied any future position of authority.
John Duarte makes a comment on here, how about his wife? She wants to be Senator, does she think it is ok an elected official steals from the ratepayers that he is supposed to protecting?
Larry Byrd has a right to steal water, lie about it, and make MID customers pick up the tab because OID has a fringe parcel policy. This is John Duarte’s argument.