No on Measure M opening statement

The Floodwall authorized by Measure M will run the entire width of northern Woodland, putting farmers between it and Cache Creek in a giant bathtub, risking a backup of rising flood waters damaging their land, wells, homes, buildings and equipment.

Supporters of Yes on Measure M claim the Floodwall is necessary to protect Woodland from the effects of a massive flood in the future. But they neglect to tell you that both the Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Woodland have admitted that Woodland has never even flooded!

Additionally, even the need for this Floodwall has diminished since 2004 because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remapped the 100-year floodplain around Woodland in 2012, removing about 4,500 homes from the floodplain and the risk of flooding in the process.

Further, according to the Army Corps of Engineers in their 2019 Feasibility Study of the Floodwall, only 425 homes in Woodland remained in the 100-year floodplain after the remapping. This is only about 2.5% of about 17,500 total number of homes in the city.

So, if Woodland has never flooded and the floodplain around Woodland is substantially smaller than in 2004 when it was last proposed, the obvious question is, “Why is the Floodwall even needed?” Well, the answer is simple…It's Not!

But the Floodwall is desperately wanted by developers because it will also pull thousands of acres they own in east Woodland below I-5 out of the floodplain. This could enable rapid commercial and residential development reminiscent of Elk Grove and Natomas. This is not right. Why should we allow Sacramento to leapfrog the Sacramento River into Woodland and Yolo County if it also puts our farmers at risk?

No on Measure M is supported by farmers, taxpayers, and everyday Woodlanders like you who all want to preserve our rural, agricultural heritage in Woodland.

No on Measure M is also endorsed by the Yolo County Farm Bureau, the Sierra Club, and the Yolo County Taxpayers Association.

Question 1: How does this proposed Measure in 2024 differ from the prohibitions of Measure S passed in 2004? Has a change in weather patterns and increased flooding risks statewide resulted in the need to proceed with this project at this time?

ANSWER PART 1 >> This Floodwall was already rejected by Woodland voters in 2002 and 2004. Unfortunately, in 2022, the Woodland City Council resurrected the Floodwall idea by proposing a purportedly “new” Floodwall design.

But this supposedly “new” Floodwall was essentially identical to that previously rejected by voters. As a result, a lawsuit was filed by the Yolo County Farm Bureau challenging the city's approval. In July 2023, a ruling was issued by the Court ordering the city was ordered to rescind their approvals of the Floodwall.

Then, on October 17, 2023, on the last possible city council meeting date on which they could act and still meet the deadline to appear on the March 2024 ballot, the city council approved putting Measure M on the ballot. But they did it with virtually no prior public notification, no previous outreach to the community, and almost no discussion during the meeting itself.

ANSWER PART 2 >> Despite seeing the wettest year in decades in 2023 with multiple “atmospheric rivers” bearing down on California, Woodland still remained high and dry. Last year was a wet-year anomaly due to the onset of El Nino weather patterns. In fact, most long-term meteorological forecasts for California still point to increasing long-term periods of severe droughts due to climate change. So extended periods of drought, not short-term risk of flooding, is the likely reality and risk facing Woodland in the future.

Question 2: What other options exist for protecting the homes in North Woodland from flooding? Do these other options have implications for land use planning in Woodland and/or Yolo County?

ANSWER PART 1 >> There is a simple alternative option for protecting Woodland from future flooding in a manner that does not jeopardize our farmers between Woodland and Cache Creek. That solution is to refurbish and fortify the existing Cache Creek levees to bring them back to their original design capacity and beyond. In fact, the California Department of Water Resources has already begun preparing an Environmental Impact Report for this exact refurbishment project.

ANSWER TO QUESTION PART 2 >> Yes, they have huge implications for both the farmers north of the Floodwall, for the citizens of Woodland, and for the developers holding large amounts of land in east Woodland that will be pulled out of the 110year floodplain if the Floodwall is constructed.

For one, if the refurbishing and strengthening of Cache Creek levees is alternatively done instead of constructing the Floodwall, farmers north of the Floodwall will not be subject to increasing flood depths in the event of a future flood that would otherwise jeopardize their land, wells, homes, buildings and equipment.

If the Floodwall is not constructed, the farmlands owned by the developers south of I-5 in east Woodland will also not be pulled from the 100-year floodplain and their potential commercial and residential development will not be possible.

This, in turn, will benefit Woodland and Yolo County residents who want to remain a compact, rural-based community and do not wish to see large-scale development leapfrogging the Sacramento River and encroaching on our agricultural, small-town heritage.