“Why would any real farmer vote to be in a water district?” I asked my real farmer friend Bob a couple of months ago. He said “Because they don’t know what they’re voting for, and by the time they do, it’ll be too late.”
Over the next three weeks, landowners along the Kaweah River’s historic trace will be voting whether or not to convert their private ditch companies into a public water district. See map below. If you know someone who lives there, I am urging you to urge them to just say no, and give us all a chance to form a real public entity—an irrigation district—on that precious land. 
I say “real” public entity because when water districts get into the hands of a few landowners with the majority of votes, they become like private property to those owners, despite their true identity as a public governmental body. And once that happens, neither the other landowners nor the residents within the district can do a damn thing about it.
But in order to understand how that happens, you have to understand the voting system in water districts. The best way to do that is to compare it with the voting system in irrigation districts.
In irrigation districts, it’s one-man, one-vote. To be a voter, you have to live within the district boundaries and be a registered voter in the county in which the district is formed, but each voter gets one vote. Very American, very much what we expect in this country.
In water districts, it’s one-dollar, one-vote—one dollar assessed land value, that is. To be a voter, you have to be a property owner, but you do not have to live within the district or be a registered voter there or anywhere. You can represent “a holder of title to land that is not a natural person,” i.e., a corporation. Once one or two entities, natural or otherwise, get 51% of the votes, the rest of the landowners—and landless residents just as dependent on water as freeholders—can kiss their options goodbye. And if they tell you their “improvements” will benefit everyone, just ask yourself this: when was the last time that what the gander wanted was actually good for the goose?
Now, you can say “But we don’t have that problem in this region.” True, we’re not like Corcoran or Buttonwillow, not yet anyway. Maybe. Truth is, we don’t actually know if there are large landholders lurking in the wings because the proponents don’t have to publish a list of who’s getting to vote, how much acreage they have or where they live. And if you ask for it, they act like you’re wanting to rummage through their underwear drawer.
In the two other formations of water districts I have followed where the purpose was to “improve groundwater management under SGMA” (Tuscan WD in Butte County and Cuyama Basin WD), the approach to getting these districts formed was to have respected local people serve as the proponents while the big dogs stayed in the background. They don’t show their faces until the election is over. The formation election is also property-weighted, so it’s very difficult for local landowners’ votes to override that power if it’s very consolidated, especially if they don’t see it coming. Especially when they’re told this is what’s going to save them. Take the Cuyamans’ word for it: this is not salvation, it’s purgatory.
One-man, one-vote. It’s a wonderful notion. Some of our relatives have died defending it, in wars, in civil rights protests, in getting women “the franchise,” as they say. But beyond that, more currently pressing, SGMA says that we are responsible locally for getting our groundwater use into balance with its ability to recharge, and that simply can’t be done with big dogs at the table, wanting to run off and bury their bones elsewhere.
So just don’t let them in the house! Vote no on Consolidated WD so we can work for a better form of government over our water resources. Our beautiful Kaweah will thank you.
Trudy Wischemann is a not-exactly tireless advocate for land and water democracy. You can send her your re-voting suggestions c/o P.O. Box 1374, Lindsay CA 93247. This column is not a news article but the opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of the Mid Valley Times newspaper.
