Modesto Irrigation District, if you’re mad at river group, don’t punish school kids

The Modesto Irrigation District should drop the idea of trying to teach an environmental organization a lesson in a way that would only hurt school children.

In last week’s MID board meeting, Stu Gilman suggested the utility punish the Tuolumne River Trust by canceling MID’s promise of $30,000, which the Trust relies on entirely for its Trekking the Tuolumne program. It teaches kids about wildlife, how water is used by people, and how to stay safe around rivers and canals.

The Trust sinned, in Gilman’s eyes, when a 23-year-old policy intern dared to use this opinion page of The Modesto Bee to say that MID charges farmers too little for irrigation water, hurting incentive to conserve.

An offense like that demands retaliation, Gilman reasoned.

He needs to grow up.

First, Trust intern Caitlin Perkey hit the nail on the head about water pricing. Last year, a judge ruled that MID long has overcharged power customers in order to keep farm water prices low. The district’s own studies for years have acknowledged that water fees don’t even come close to covering MID’s costs to deliver it. Knowing the inequity is wrong, the board has not raised electricity prices in many years while continuing to bump up water rates, although they still remain far too low.

Speaking truth to power requires courage and should never be rewarded with “I’m taking my ball and going home” foolishness.

Second, why seek revenge on the Trust for something an intern did? She gave voice to long-held Trust positions, but it’s not at all clear that her op-ed column — submitted to The Bee with her student email, not the Trust’s — was sanctioned by the Trust.

Third, the entire five-man board responded to Perkey’s April 21 column with a strongly worded May 3 rebuttal published on this opinion page. They called Perkey’s column a “hit piece on agriculture riddled with inaccuracies.” Using The Bee’s opinion section to discuss important issues is entirely appropriate. Continuing to swing away, with blows landing on children, is not.

Incidentally, MID’s request for preferential treatment — asking that the board’s response run in a Sunday paper with higher circulation — was rejected, and it appeared on a weekday, same as Perkey’s.

Fourth, Gilman’s solution for punishing the Trust would not hurt it as much as the thousands of pupils it serves, many from poor and underserved neighborhoods. It’s like expelling a 9-year-old because her father is a loud-mouth at soccer games, or because his mother’s skirts are short. The punishment is unrelated to the so-called crime.

Fifth, many will view this as bullying, resulting in a public relations black eye for MID.

Modesto irrigation retaliation still a possibility

Gilman’s board colleagues wisely refused to go along with his misguided notion. Nick Blom said he would not renege on the board’s funding commitment. Paul Campbell frowned at the potential for bad publicity.

But they did not dismiss it entirely, saying they will revisit whether to contribute to the Trust next year in upcoming budget discussions.

This editorial board consistently has sided with MID against environmental and fishing entities in ongoing water rights conflicts. The Bee believes that compromise goals for both sides can best be served with voluntary agreement negotiations, and has called on California Gov. Gavin Newsom to use his influence to bring them to a close.

In other words, MID is right about the big water picture, and the Tuolumne River Trust is wrong to hold out for more flows benefiting fish at the expense of our economy.

But MID can afford to take a higher road when called out by a truth-telling intern. When you’re trying to swat a fly, swinging a sledgehammer just looks silly.

This story was originally published May 19, 2021 at 5:00 AM.