MID considers drought fee for all farmers, plus penalties for suspected water thieves

This season’s drought surcharge could be 34 percent higher than last year for Modesto-area farmers, if irrigation leaders approve a staff recommendation at Wednesday’s board meeting.

The Modesto Irrigation District board also will consider slapping three unidentified customers with $1,500 fines for allegedly irrigating without permission.

MID’s 2014 drought surcharge of $11.91 per acre raised $853,000, but that fell far short of the district’s $1.15 million in extra expenses for pumping groundwater and patrolling canals. Charging $16 an acre should cover drought-related costs this year, as long as a new money-for-groundwater program remains a failure, a staff report says.

Misgivings about the so-called supply augmentation program were narrowly set aside in April when the board voted 3-2 to create it as another way of coping with prolonged drought. People could volunteer to turn over private wells to the district, which would pump untold amounts in exchange for giving a well owner 12 more inches of better-quality river water.

Electricity needed for that pumping in theory would increase MID’s drought expenses, requiring an even higher surcharge. But no one has signed up for the program in the three months since the board created it.

The drought surcharge would die if more than half of MID’s farmers were to protest, but only three had as of June 30. People still can have their say at Wednesday’s board meeting, moved from the regular Tuesday slot to accommodate board members’ schedules; it starts at 9 a.m. Wednesday in the chamber at 1231 11th St., Modesto.

The board in April seemed unwilling to force MID’s electricity payers to shoulder a higher subsidy benefiting farmers – the only realistic alternative to a drought surcharge. This year, power customers are expected to subsidize 83.2 percent of MID’s true costs for delivering water to farms.

Last year, the board adopted stern punishment for suspected water bandits and publicly shamed six customers on an MID website, in addition to extinguishing their water rights and levying $1,500 fines. But most complained about the rush to judgment and offered reasons, and MID ultimately reversed some penalties and toned down the policy before the current season.

District staff this year caught three Empire customers allegedly stealing water, but the penalty process is much different. All were given a chance to tell their side of the story to staff, and MID is withholding their names; however, staff recommends that all receive $1,500 fines, and getting them overturned would require a public presentation at Wednesday’s board meeting.

The first owns about an acre near Church and Third streets and fell behind in MID payments many years ago, resulting in a lien. In a letter to the district, the landowner acknowledged taking water for a short period in April and cited “many personal hardships” resulting in the couple “barely keeping our heads above water, trying to make ends meet. … We were not in any way at all trying to be deceitful and taking something that we did not believe was ours. That is the honest-to-God truth!”

The couple admitted irrigating about five times in the nine years when they should have taken none, and paid the $2,300 balance of their bill after getting caught, in May.

The second customer accused of water theft has small lots near B and Third streets, also in Empire, and has rights to zero water this year but was discovered irrigating in May, a report says. She admitted to taking water since 2013 without permission and without coordinating with ditchtenders, the report says.

The third, with 9 acres south of Root and Garst roads, took water out of turn in June, a report says. He claimed he did not know his field had been flooded until he received photographs from MID; in a letter to the district, he said a neighbor may have caused the mistake, or perhaps a rusty screw on his own water gate.

This story was originally published July 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM with the headline "MID considers drought fee for all farmers, plus penalties for suspected water thieves."