Modesto Irrigation District OKs higher drought surcharge

Farmers are likely to pay a heftier drought surcharge this year, Modesto Irrigation District leaders decided Tuesday and added another option among several drought-coping programs from which to choose.

Unwilling to force electricity payers to shoulder a higher subsidy benefiting farmers, the MID board unanimously agreed to initiate a drought surcharge process that could add $16 per acre to growers’ water bills this season, compared with last year’s $11.91-per-acre surcharge. Officials will pinpoint the dollar amount at a July 14 public hearing.

On a separate 3-2 vote, the board narrowly approved a new money-for-groundwater program despite misgivings that it will succeed. People can volunteer to turn over their 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.

Both issues generated debate.

“Money doesn’t produce more water, it just doesn’t,” board chairman Larry Byrd said, chaffing at the drought surcharge. He noted that the board recently raised water prices from $32.50 per acre to $40 per acre in a new flat-fee structure, plus more depending on how much water a grower uses.

Noting a minimum proposed charge of $56 per acre, Byrd said, “That’s a huge hit for a small grower.” Some are “trying to hang on for dear life,” he said; Latino farmworkers are “suffering more than the farmer because they’re flat out of work,” he added.

Board member John Mensinger, whose district is mostly urban, said even with the surcharge MID customers would pay less than those in the neighboring Turlock Irrigation District. Canceling an MID surcharge would force its electricity customers, who have subsidized water prices for decades, to cover drought-related costs for groundwater pumping and nighttime canal patrols, Mensinger said.

“All we’re asking this year is for farmers to pay the actual costs of these programs,” he said.

Last year, the board approved the $11.91-per-acre surcharge before the season began, and it generated $853,000. But that fell far short of the final bill of $1.15 million. A $16-per-acre surcharge should cover it this year, assuming similar costs, said John Davids, the district’s irrigation operations manager.

Board member Jake Wenger pointed out that MID’s 50 huge wells ran 24-7 last year, accounting for about 6 inches of the 24-inch allotment in 2015. He predicted that most farmers would rather pay the surcharge this year for a historic low of 16 inches per acre, rather than turn off MID’s pumps for a measly 10 inches.

“Without that increased (pumping) cost, you don’t get that water,” Wenger said. “So more money is getting us more water.”

Redding attorney Walter McNeill disputed the district’s approach to structuring the surcharge. Ripon attorney Stacy Henderson questioned anticipated overtime costs.

Byrd eventually voted with the others to send out surcharge notices and schedule the July 14 hearing. By state law, the board at that time could impose a fee of less than $16 per acre, but could not raise it.

Several people, including board members, said the new pumping program could fail for lack of participation.

“Why would I relinquish the use of my own pump for those 12 inches?” of Tuolumne River water, asked board member Nick Blom, who farms. He also feared liability challenges if neighbors’ wells run dry. Or, farmers could complain about substandard crops if too much mineral-laden groundwater ends up in district canals because of so much pumping, Blom said.

Henderson said all farmers will share in the surcharge burden, mostly attributed to extra pumping costs, while no one knows how much groundwater might be added to MID supplies. “There is a potential benefit but a guaranteed cost,” she said.

Mensinger suggested limiting the so-called supply augmentation program to three or so participants, limiting MID’s liability exposure. But Wenger said that would defeat the main goal of augmenting river water with as much groundwater as possible, benefiting all water customers.

Board member Paul Campbell sided with Mensinger, but they were outvoted by Byrd, Wenger and Blom.

MID’s other drought-coping programs feature farmers’ open-market and fixed-price sales to other growers, and the district buying groundwater pumped from private wells in exchange for returning 75 percent of the amount in river water. Five customers have signed up for the latter.

Last year, four farmers who had signed up to buy fixed-price transfers later changed their minds and took no water. The district said they should honor contracts and pay anyway, leading to a recently resolved dispute, the terms of which have not been made public.

Modesto attorney Bob Fores asked how much the customers agreed to pay to settle the disagreement and complained about a “lack of transparency.” MID General Manager Roger VanHoy said a report will be presented to the board May 12 without naming customers or how much each paid.

The May 12 board meeting will start at 9 a.m. in the chamber at 1231 11th St., Modesto.

This story was originally published April 28, 2015 at 4:00 PM with the headline "Modesto Irrigation District OKs higher drought surcharge."