Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Director Larry Byrd’s participation in a board vote to end an investigation into allegations of water theft against himself has prompted criticism from ethics experts and raised concerns about the district’s governance.
In December, Byrd joined Director Janice Keeting in voting to halt the inquiry, while Board President Robert Frobose and Director Chris Ott voted to continue. Ethics specialists have questioned why Byrd was permitted to vote on a matter that directly concerned him.
“That’s an easy, obvious no,” said Gerard Wellman, political science professor at California State University, Stanislaus. “The conflict of interest is substantial and strong, and that alone should have been enough to recuse.”
The investigation had been launched after public accusations surfaced alleging Byrd stole or misused canal water managed by MID. Although the findings did not conclusively implicate Byrd, they indicated some of his previous responses were impossible according to scientific analysis. If Byrd had recused himself from voting, the investigation would have continued.
Christina Bellon, a member of Sacramento State University’s Center for Practical and Professional Ethics (CPPE), described Byrd’s participation as “somewhat standard case of conflict of interest.” Her CPPE colleague Chong Un Choe-Smith wrote: “Regardless of the merits of the investigation, public officials shouldn’t be voting on whether to continue or discontinue an investigation into themselves.”
MID legal counsel defended Byrd’s right to vote on grounds related to self-governance and potential censure. Spokesperson Melissa Williams said this justified his participation. Wellman rejected this explanation: “It certainly raises the appearance of misconduct… casting a vote against continuing an investigation as a vote of self-defense certainly does not increase the average person’s trust in government.”
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), which oversees conflict-of-interest laws for California public agencies, declined comment on this specific case but stated that officials must recuse themselves when their financial interests are foreseeably affected by governmental decisions. FPPC spokesperson Shery Yang noted: “In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests.”
At the same meeting where Byrd voted, Director John Boer IV recused himself due to financial ties with T&S Byrd LLC—owned by Tim Byrd, Larry’s brother and business partner at AB La Grange Ranch.
Financial disclosure documents show Larry Byrd received over $100,000 in 2024 from AB La Grange Ranch operations valued above $1 million. These interests had been previously disclosed during another conflict-of-interest accusation five years ago.
In 2020, an attorney alleged that Byrd advocated for below-market sales of MID water outside district boundaries through its groundwater replenishment program (GRP) for personal benefit—specifically benefiting his business partner Tyler Angle. The FPPC advised in February 2021 that AB La Grange could not participate in GRP; however, properties linked to Angle reportedly did so between 2017 and 2019 while Byrd participated in related votes.
During MID’s December meeting last year, controversy escalated over campaign contributions connected with water pricing decisions. Frobose reported pressure from Angle following his refusal to support lower-priced water sales despite receiving campaign funds from Angle. Frobose told The Bee: “My vote is not for sale.”
Byrd expressed frustration at Frobose’s stance during discussions about water prices: “You think I didn’t want that water for 60 bucks an acre-foot? Oh my god…”
Experts like Wellman emphasized transparency and accountability are fundamental when public resources are involved: “Even if there are only suggestions or allegations of misconduct… it’s the public’s resources we’re investigating … not Mr. Byrd’s resources.”
It remains unclear what external agency might pursue further investigation if MID chooses not to act itself.
Addressing potential future action at December’s meeting, MID attorney Frank Splendorio cited costs as a concern but stressed candid advice was necessary given strong feelings around these issues: “We could come back and we can be here six months from now and we will be litigating the same issue because of strong feelings.”
Wellman argued ethical considerations should exceed legal requirements: “It’s important to remember that the law is the bare minimum… So ethics is going to … propel us to behaviors that might be more than what the law requires.”
Director Ott voiced hope that failure to continue investigating would not be viewed as a cover-up: “Let’s move forward, we owe it to the ratepayers of this district,” he said.
As of Wednesday afternoon, MID had not responded regarding whether alleged theft was reported externally such as with Stanislaus County authorities.
