Flood plan protection puts property and lives at risk

There is no denying that Woodland needs a plan to protect its residents and land from floods, however, the plan for flood protection that is set for review in July should not be accepted by the city and by the good people of Woodland. Not only was a nearly identical plan rejected by citizen vote in 2004, but this plan also violates this county’s commitment to agriculture preservation and will destroy the income of some residents. My own family’s land that I was raised on and is farmed to this day, would be impacted along with my mother’s income.

The recent Daily Democrat article covering this plan stated that the Tentatively Selected Plan “Alternative 2A” was selected due to the reduction of flood risk and damage to the people and property in Woodland, and in the surrounding areas. What was omitted was that the implementation of this plan will negatively impact the property and lives of people living and farming in the surrounding area north of Woodland. The project footprint will require the permanent conversion of 192 acres of farmland to nonagricultural use, of which 185 acres are prime farmland.

Importantly, some of the land in the project footprint is under a Williamson Act contract which protects farmland from conversion to other uses and commits the owners to “promise” to maintain the land in agriculture when entering these contracts. The proposed project would cancel the contracts, against the wishes of the land owners, so the land could be purchased from them for pennies on the dollar and used by the government for “alternative” uses, including the construction of flood infrastructure.

The 2030 Countywide General Plan for Yolo County is the county’s values and vision in writing and it contains goals and policies to protect agriculture, because that is the backbone of Yolo County. It is stated, inaccurately, in the Environmental Impact Report that the proposed project would not conflict with elements of goals and policies in the General Plan related to agricultural preservation. How is this not a direct conflict? One of the preservation goals in the General Plan is to preserve farmland and ensure a strong local agricultural economy, and yet this plan will sacrifice farmland to build the flood wall, and to be flooded if Cache Creek overruns its banks. This plan does not seem to respect agriculture or our county’s values.

Woodland needs flood protection but it needs a plan to provide that protection that honors our city and county’s residents and their work.

Betsy Spaulding,

Santa Barbara