Investigators collected records.
The county removed nothing except a control module and water samples.
Harold watched from his porch.
He said nothing.
The isotope tests came back five days later.
Reservoir water matched county source closely enough to establish that substantial county water had entered it recently.
Then came electrical records.
Pump consumption matched irrigation cycles.
Then purchase history.
The pipe was bought eleven years earlier.
The pump six months later.
A contractor initially installed part of the system.
The contractor had died.
His company no longer existed.
But an old employee remembered.
“He told us Mercer had county approval.”
Did he?
No permit existed.
Harold’s defense shifted.
First:
The line wasn't his.
Then:
The line was for drainage.
Then:
The line was legally installed.
Then:
He believed the contractor handled approval.
Then:
He used it only to move private reservoir water, not county water.
Each explanation collided with a record.
Not all contradictions proved criminal intent.
But they damaged credibility.
The county prosecutor reviewed potential charges.
The water authority calculated unauthorized withdrawals.
Millions of gallons over years.
Not enough to cause the drought.
Enough to matter during restrictions.
Neighboring farms had not lost all their water because of Harold.
That would have been too simple.
The drought remained the largest cause.
But his diversion reduced pressure and available volume during critical cycles.
Walter’s north field was affected.
Samuel’s too.
Others.
Emily’s farm received accidental backpressure during certain pump operations, complicating everything.
People wanted the county to make Harold responsible for all crop losses.
Perez refused.
“We can estimate impact.”
“We cannot pretend the drought did not exist.”
Some farmers hated that answer.
Evidence rarely satisfies anger perfectly.
Then came the county meeting.
The courthouse assembly room filled beyond capacity.
Farmers stood along walls.
News crews from Wichita arrived.
Emily hated cameras.
Harold arrived with an attorney.
He sat in the front row.
Did not look at her.
The water authority presented findings.
Maps.
Pressure graphs.
Flow estimates.
Installation records.
Pump cycles.
Reservoir samples.
Then Daniel Perez displayed a photograph of the muddy pipe.
Serial number visible.
The room remained silent.
Harold’s attorney questioned assumptions.
Some effectively.
He pointed out gaps in records.
Dates uncertain.
Exact total diversion impossible to calculate.
The county’s old meters lacked precision.
Good points.
Perez acknowledged each one.
No exaggeration.
Then the attorney asked:
“Can you prove Mr. Mercer personally opened these valves on any specific date?”
Perez answered:
“No.”
The attorney nodded.
“Thank you.”
Murmurs.
Emily understood the distinction.
Owning a system did not prove each individual action.
Then Sheriff Reeves testified about the purchase invoice.
The attorney asked:
“Did Mr. Mercer sign this invoice?”
“Yes.”
“Does the invoice state the purpose was to steal county water?”
A few people reacted.
Sheriff Reeves remained calm.
“No.”