A guide on Woodland's Measure M

There is no shortage of information or opinions when it comes to Measure M, but what does a “Yes” or “No” vote mean, and what do you as a voter need to know about it?

According to the Yolo County Elections Office website, on Oct. 17, 2023, the Woodland City Council voted to place Measure M on the March 5 special municipal election ballot, which will be consolidated and held on the statewide primary election.

If approved by a majority of Woodland voters, Measure M would explicitly authorize the city of Woodland to accept and use at least $300,000,000 in federal and state contributions or up to 99% of the construction and associated costs of the Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management Project.

It would also further authorize the city of Woodland to construct the setback levee conveyance channel, which would prevent flood waters from flowing south into Woodland's city-limit areas and convey that water out into the Cache Creek Settling Basin, and utilize city funds for the remainder of the project costs exclusive of federal and state funding.

The project includes the building of a levee or series of earthen barriers that would start west of County Road 98, go north near County Road 16 to Carter Lane and then track east to Churchill Downs Avenue and County Road 102 before shifting south to County Road 22, north of Interstate-5.

The levee could range from between 6 and 14 feet tall depending on the area, and CR-98 and CR-99 could be raised where they and the levee intersect. There would also be a number of drainage channels in the areas of CR-98, CR-99, CR-101, CR-102, Highway 113 and under I-5.

In 2004, a majority of Woodland voters, 62.8%, passed Measure S, which added Section 8.12.010 to the Woodland Municipal Code. The section provides in part that the city of Woodland shall not fund or take any action that supports the Lower Cache Creek flood barrier, a proposed project that was previously approved by the city council in 2003,

or take any action that supports a substantially similar structure.

Measure S was in response to the 2003 Lower Cache Creek Flood Barrier project and encouraged a “regional flood control” plan in the form of a setback levee system that would “protect not only the city of Woodland but also the area north of Woodland and the area north of Cache Creek.

According to the city of Woodland's website, the project is part of a regional set of projects to improve flood protection. This coordinated strategy did not exist when the 2003 project was proposed.

The main differences between Measure M and previous plans such as Measure S, according to the city of Woodland are that this project provides flood conveyance under Hwy. 113 and I-5, a flood conveyance channel intended to avoid worsening flooding north of the city, improved weirs and culverts to move flood water more quickly out of the area north of the city and a detention basin intended to assist drainage and decrease flood duration.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the city council approved the Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management Project. Measure M would modify Section 8.12.010 as previously enacted by Measure S, to explicitly authorize the city to accept and utilize federal and state contributions in an amount of at least $300,000,000, or up to 99 percent of project costs.

In March 2021, the Yolo County Farm Bureau, as well as two former Farm Bureau presidents, filed a lawsuit against the city of Woodland and the city council over the project.

They won the lawsuit in August 2022.

The suit — which was filed on March 25, 2021 — is a Verified Petition for a Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief or a way to get the judicial branch to reaffirm previous contracts.

The Farm Bureau, as well as former presidents Nancy Lea and Eric Paulsen, alleged that the city's February decision to move forward with the levee project directly violates Measure S.

According to an impartial guide provided by the Yolo County Elections office, a “Yes” vote on Measure M will authorize the city to accept and utilize state and federal funding for the project as described above. It will also further authorize the city to construct the levee system and fund the remaining costs with city funds.

A “No” vote on the measure will keep the language of Section 8.12.010 in its current form as originally enacted by Measure “S” and will not add authorization for the construction of the project.

Argument for Measure M on the Yolo County Elections Office website

We have all seen the television news images of what flood damage does to a community. But when the news crews move on to the next story, we don't see the years it takes to rebuild those communities.

Every year in the United States, floods cause an average of $2 billion in damage. California alone was projected to have $3 billion in damage in the last year. Unfortunately, Woodland sits in harm's way.

The state and federal governments have agreed on a solution. They will pay to channel flood waters that can threaten Woodland to flow into the bypass in the east — away from our homes, our businesses and our water/sewer treatment facilities.

Measure M allows the city of Woodland to accept at least $300 million in state and federal funding to build this channeling solution and avoid far greater costs of rebuilding a disastrously damaged community.

Your “Yes” vote will mean the state and federal governments can pay 99% of the cost to keep flood waters away from where we live and work. And control the cost of homeowner insurance.

Investing in preventing damage and disaster doesn't make the news. But no news about a flood is good news for Woodland.

Measure M has the unanimous support of our city council. Measure M deserves a unanimous “Yes” from Woodland voters.

— Supported by the Woodland City Council

Argument Against Measure M on the Yolo County Elections Office website

Here they go again! This Floodwall was already rejected by Woodland voters in 2002 AND 2004. Additionally, a Yolo County court struck down the Woodland City Council's unlawful Floodwall approval in 2023.

But now rich and powerful Measure M supporters have brought it back with exaggerated warnings and misleading statements telling you to approve this massive, 5.6-mile, $300 million Floodwall practically right on Woodland's northern border. Don't be fooled! Promoters of this taxpayer-funded boondoggle claim it protects thousands of residents from future floods if Cache Creek levees fail. But only 425 residences are actually in the 100-year floodplain requiring flood insurance, primarily in Beamer Park, which has never seriously flooded!

They don't tell you the Floodwall makes “losers” of many long-time local farmers between north Woodland and Cache Creek by putting them into a giant bathtub, devaluing their lands, and possibly leaving some with no way out.

The “winners” of this wasteful pork barrel project are wealthy outside land speculators who own and could potentially urbanize thousands of acres of farmland between east Woodland and the Yolo Bypass.

If this Floodwall is built, these lands would be removed from the 100-year floodplain potentially multiplying their value. The largest of these speculators own thousands and thousands of acres that could be freed for sprawling development!

And we aren't told that State legislation to help pay up to 99% of the project costs cost FAILED in 2023, potentially leaving Woodland to pay if funds aren't secured!

Plus, there are already plans to rebuild the Cache Creek levees back to original design capacity. So why is this new floodwall even necessary?

Why should we pay so wealthy outside speculators “win” and our own small farmers “lose”? This is the reason some folks are calling this the “Billionaires' Floodwall.”

— Supported by Yolo County Farm Bureau President Garrett Driver, Former Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner Ray Perkins, Yolo County Taxpayers Association President Mark Mezger, Past President of the Yolo County Farm Bureau Eric Paulsen, and Principal Officer for No on Measure M — No on the Floodwall Nancy Lea.

Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure M

Promoters of Measure M are trying to put “lipstick on a pig” by claiming the $300 million Floodwall is desperately needed to protect Woodland from flooding. But according to the city's own 2020 analysis, the city of Woodland has never even experienced flooding!

So what's the real reason for the floodwall? Well, it's simple — the floodwall will pull thousands of acres of land just east and southeast of Woodland out of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 100year floodplain and potentially open it up for explosive commercial and residential sprawl.

This could produce tremendous development profits for waiting land speculators. Meanwhile, our longtime farming friends left behind the floodwall, who are a vital part of our community, could be seriously financially harmed by rising flood waters!

And not disclosed to voters is the potential liability to Woodland if the floodwall results in flood damages to our farmers behind the floodwall. Standing flood waters can contaminate fields and wells with pathogens and silt and destroy homes, buildings and expensive agricultural machinery.

Also, while the Woodland City Council “authorizes” Woodland to “accept” up to 99% of project costs, there is no guarantee that money will ever be available. If the money is not all there, there is little to prevent the city itself from paying millions to build the floodwall!

No on Measure M is endorsed by the Yolo County Farm Bureau and the Yolo County Taxpayers Association and everyday working Woodland folks and farmers like you.

Protect our small farmers and taxpayers — not wealthy land speculators.

Please vote “NO” on Measure M — no on the floodwall.

Rebuttal to the argument against Measure M

Measure M asks voters for permission to accept at least $300 million from the state and federal governments.

A “Yes” vote will allow Woodland to accept the money. A “No” vote sends the money someplace else.

Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry proposed a new law reducing Woodland's cost to 1% for channeling flood water away from Woodland. State and federal governments cover 99%.

In 1986, three days of heavy rain broke a weak spot in the levee and wiped out Rio Linda and Natomas.

In 1997, the Consumnes River flood destroyed sections of south Sacramento County.

In 2011, relentless heavy rain put West Sacramento in danger and took the Yolo Bypass past its limit.

In 2023, the historic rains were estimated to cause $3 billion in damage in California.

Woodland has been spared. But not prepared.

If our luck runs out, the people who get hurt aren't billionaires.

The Measure M levee will protect all of Woodland… not just a few hundred homes in the flood plain. The Measure M levee will protect businesses employing as many as 10,000 people. The Measure M levee will protect our water/ sewer treatment plant and keep I-5 open.

Measure M protects the Woodland community.

— Supported by Woodland Mayor Tania Garcia-Cadena, retired mayor Harlin “Skip” Davies and retried Yolo County Superintendent of Schools Jesse Ortiz.