Our View: OID’s out-of-whack districts must be fixed – now

Does it matter that the Oakdale Irrigation District’s five election districts are wildly out of balance? Absolutely.

First, because it can dramatically affect how the district operates. Second, because having twice as many voters in one district as in another abrogates the one-person, one-vote concept our form of representative government is based upon. And third, because the law requires voting districts to be roughly equal.

Reporter Garth Stapley described Sunday how the largest of OID’s five election districts has at least twice as many people as OID’s least-populated district. The largest district includes much of the city of Oakdale.

Intentional or not, OID’s largest district has far more city dwellers while the other four have more rural residents.

It’s more likely those rural residents will vote farmers onto OID’s board. That gives those residents more say over how OID spends money from power generation, how much water will be delivered, what that water will cost and groundwater pumping policies, among other things.

For example, a five-member board with four farmers might think it is perfectly reasonable to provide free irrigation water, as the district has done on occasion. But a board with more members who don’t farm might insist that charges should always reflect the value of water and the cost of delivery.

Everyone who lives in the district has a say because they both own it and they are responsible for its well-being. When repairs or upgrades are needed, every property owner – living on a farm or in the middle of town – can be asked to help bear the costs.

But there’s a flip side. The Oakdale Irrigation District gets substantial revenues from selling electricity from the Tri-Dam Project (which it co-owns with the South San Joaquin Irrigation District). OID has used that money to help keep the price of irrigation water low, providing farmers with some of the lowest rates in the state. At the same time, the district justifies selling a portion of its surface water to districts outside the region by saying it needs the money to improve its antiquated delivery system.

Would a board including members from different backgrounds embrace those same goals? Or would it set different priorities, benefiting a wider range of the district’s residents?

Creating fair election districts is not some new regulation or broad suggestion. As Stapley noted, every other irrigation district in the region follows the law by regularly looking at population figures, then adjusting boundaries accordingly.

OID knew it had a problem but chose to ignore it. After all, no one was watching.

You can’t blame the district for that. The state charters thousands of special districts, then ducks out of the way – depending on those who don’t feel adequately represented to sue for relief. That’s nuts.

Such districts are required to submit myriad numbers to the state each year. Why not require them to review population figures and certify that representation is fair? When districts get out of whack, they can be corrected without the cost of waging court battles.

In February, we wrote that OID sometimes appears to be a club run for the benefit of member-farmers. Now we see that some got into the club more easily than others. That’s not fair.

This story was originally published June 10, 2015 at 3:57 PM with the headline "Our View: OID’s out-of-whack districts must be fixed – now."