Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Director Larry Byrd’s recent vote to halt an investigation into allegations of water theft against himself has raised concerns about conflicts of interest and transparency within the district, according to ethics experts.
The investigation, initiated in September following public accusations that Byrd either stole or misused canal water belonging to the district, found inconsistencies in Byrd’s previous explanations. However, it did not definitively implicate him. When the MID board voted on whether to continue the probe, Byrd and Director Janice Keeting opposed the motion while Board President Robert Frobose and Director Chris Ott supported it. Byrd’s participation in this vote has drawn criticism.
“That’s an easy, obvious no,” said Gerard Wellman, a political science professor at California State University, Stanislaus who specializes in public service ethics. “The conflict of interest is substantial and strong, and that alone should have been enough to recuse.”
Christina Bellon from Sacramento State University’s Center for Practical and Professional Ethics described Byrd’s vote as a “somewhat standard case of conflict of interest.” Her colleague Chong Un Choe-Smith added: “Regardless of the merits of the investigation, public officials shouldn’t be voting on whether to continue or discontinue an investigation into themselves.”
MID spokesperson Melissa Williams cited legal counsel stating that Byrd was permitted to vote because he had “the right to defend himself on matters of self-governance and potential censure.” Wellman disagreed with this justification: “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 state and local agencies, could not comment on this specific case but noted generally that officials should abstain from decisions likely to affect their personal finances or interests. FPPC spokesperson Shery Yang wrote: “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.”
Director John Boer IV recused himself from related discussions after being advised due to his financial ties with T&S Byrd LLC—a company owned by Tim Byrd, Larry Byrd’s brother. Financial disclosures show Larry Byrd received over $100,000 in 2024 from AB La Grange Ranch—valued at over $1 million—and previously faced conflict-of-interest accusations five years ago.
In 2020, documents alleged that Byrd promoted selling MID water at below-market rates through its groundwater replenishment program (GRP) to benefit his business partner Tyler Angle. The FPPC advised that AB La Grange Ranch could not participate in GRP but left unresolved whether Byrd should recuse himself from future votes; nonetheless, he continued participating.
Board President Frobose described pressure from Angle—who contributed $2,500 to his campaign—to support low-priced water sales outside the district. Frobose ultimately voted against these sales despite campaign contributions and reported returning Angle’s donation after disagreement.
Wellman emphasized that governmental transparency is essential: “Even if there are only suggestions or allegations of misconduct, they should still be treated with appropriate respect… Because it’s the public’s resources that we’re investigating … not Mr. Byrd’s resources.”
With MID serving as its own first line of oversight regarding resource use—and uncertainty over what agency would handle further inquiries—questions remain about how allegations can be fully addressed if internal efforts stall.
“It’s going to cost the district a lot of money… I’m not trying to chill this, but I’m trying to provide candid advice to the board, and to the public about expectations,” said MID attorney Frank Splendorio regarding possible next steps for investigation.
“Wellman countered this by saying that whether or not law can be litigated, ethical considerations remain important: ‘It’s important to remember that law is the bare minimum… So ethics is going to … propel us toward behaviors more than what law requires.’”
Director Ott expressed hope there would be no perception of cover-up due to stopping further inquiry: “Let’s move forward; we owe it to ratepayers… So hopefully… we can start anew. That’s my hope.”
According to Williams’ email statement after December’s meeting: “Any actions for proceeding any further would need to be discussed and acted upon in a public Board meeting.”
