Editorial: Folsom's growth plan doesn't hold enough water
Published: Monday, Jun. 13, 2011 - 12:00 am
Folsom's elected leaders probably didn't realize the mistake they were making in 2004 when they persuaded voters to approve a charter measure that was pure politics. The measure, among other things, smoothed the way for development south of Highway 50 by promising existing residents that the city's existing water supply wouldn't be tapped for the expansion.
At the time, city leaders feared that slow-growth forces might pass a competing measure - later disqualified for the ballot - aimed at stifling any new development. Yet by attempting to appease citizens with Measure W, they placed the city in a costly and untenable position. The bill for that decision has now come due.
On Tuesday, the Folsom City Council is slated to consider permits for development south of 50. The permits will allow construction of more than 10,000 homes and 7.2 million square feet of commercial, retail and office space over a 25-year period.
In many respects, Folsom has done a reasonable job of planning this project. You could argue it is too light on housing and too heavy on retail. But it includes thoughtful provisions for schools, open space, transit, bikeways and neighborhood design.
Yet there's one major problem with this project - its water supply. To comply with the provisions of Measure W, Folsom is banking on a "reassignment" of water from a Natomas agricultural district that could cost nearly $250 million.
We have no problem with water transfers, as we noted in 2007. But $250 million for 10,000 homes and other development? According to Folsom's own analysis, that will add $38,882 to each new unit of single family housing. And that is just part of the $1 billion in infrastructure needed for this development.
By taking this route, Folsom faces two different sets of risks.
First off, water transfers are notoriously difficult to pull off - particularly ones that would shift supplies from farms to cities. Water contractors across California will want proof that Folsomis buying "real water" from Natomas - supplies freed up through conservation or fallowing of crops, as opposed to Sacramento River water that others might claim.
Yet even if the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation were to permit such a transfer, the costs of moving the water to a 10,000-unit development defy common sense. Folsom would need to share in the costs of Sacramento County's Freeport intake, and build pipelines and pumping plants to move the water across the county. On top of the $250 million in capital costs, $15 million yearly would be needed to operate the system. The burden of these costs would fall on buyers of houses, assuring that only the wealthy (and unwise) could afford to live south of Highway 50.
As much as Folsom leaders may cringe at the thought, repeal of Measure W is a better alternative. Because of its large lots and lack of water meters, Folsom currently uses about 350 gallons per person daily, far more than other cities, even Sacramento.
By undertaking conservation measures, Folsom could gradually get down to 250 gallons per person daily. That would free up enough water to supply expansion south of Highway 50.
Given the economy, there's no rush to approve the land-use entitlements. Why not resolve the water issue first?
It might be tough to persuade Folsom voters to repeal Measure W, but not if residents were to get something in return. Imagine if Southof-50 developers were to contribute $100 million to the existing city instead of spending $250 million to build pipelines elsewhere. Wouldn't that be a better option for Folsom and its residents, current and future? Why is this city so locked into an unwise decision that dates back to 2004?
At the time, city leaders feared that slow-growth forces might pass a competing measure - later disqualified for the ballot - aimed at stifling any new development. Yet by attempting to appease citizens with Measure W, they placed the city in a costly and untenable position. The bill for that decision has now come due.
On Tuesday, the Folsom City Council is slated to consider permits for development south of 50. The permits will allow construction of more than 10,000 homes and 7.2 million square feet of commercial, retail and office space over a 25-year period.
In many respects, Folsom has done a reasonable job of planning this project. You could argue it is too light on housing and too heavy on retail. But it includes thoughtful provisions for schools, open space, transit, bikeways and neighborhood design.
Yet there's one major problem with this project - its water supply. To comply with the provisions of Measure W, Folsom is banking on a "reassignment" of water from a Natomas agricultural district that could cost nearly $250 million.
We have no problem with water transfers, as we noted in 2007. But $250 million for 10,000 homes and other development? According to Folsom's own analysis, that will add $38,882 to each new unit of single family housing. And that is just part of the $1 billion in infrastructure needed for this development.
By taking this route, Folsom faces two different sets of risks.
First off, water transfers are notoriously difficult to pull off - particularly ones that would shift supplies from farms to cities. Water contractors across California will want proof that Folsomis buying "real water" from Natomas - supplies freed up through conservation or fallowing of crops, as opposed to Sacramento River water that others might claim.
Yet even if the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation were to permit such a transfer, the costs of moving the water to a 10,000-unit development defy common sense. Folsom would need to share in the costs of Sacramento County's Freeport intake, and build pipelines and pumping plants to move the water across the county. On top of the $250 million in capital costs, $15 million yearly would be needed to operate the system. The burden of these costs would fall on buyers of houses, assuring that only the wealthy (and unwise) could afford to live south of Highway 50.
As much as Folsom leaders may cringe at the thought, repeal of Measure W is a better alternative. Because of its large lots and lack of water meters, Folsom currently uses about 350 gallons per person daily, far more than other cities, even Sacramento.
By undertaking conservation measures, Folsom could gradually get down to 250 gallons per person daily. That would free up enough water to supply expansion south of Highway 50.
Given the economy, there's no rush to approve the land-use entitlements. Why not resolve the water issue first?
It might be tough to persuade Folsom voters to repeal Measure W, but not if residents were to get something in return. Imagine if Southof-50 developers were to contribute $100 million to the existing city instead of spending $250 million to build pipelines elsewhere. Wouldn't that be a better option for Folsom and its residents, current and future? Why is this city so locked into an unwise decision that dates back to 2004?
No comments:
Post a Comment