Yes on M opening statement

First, let me thank the Daily Democrat and the League of Women Voters for this opportunity to explain the Council's intent on putting Measure M before our voters. We all believe voters should ultimately decide what is best for the community that we all share.

When considering how to vote on Measure M, ask yourself: Do you support effective flood control protection for my community? And if so, should I accept an opportunity for federal and state funding to pay for 99% of it? If you answered “yes,” then a Yes vote on Measure M will make that happen.

Did you know Woodland has the highest flood risk of any urban area in the Central Valley? Woodland is currently without that protection. We have been working more than 25 years to develop a solution. It is uncertain if we will be given another opportunity for this funding.

About 800 homes are at risk, including apartment buildings, schools, senior complexes, retail businesses, and major employers. Our entire northeast industrial area supporting over 10,000 jobs is vulnerable to flooding. It is realistic to think that over 5000 residents would be displaced. It's safe to say that many flooded businesses may never recover leaving thousands without jobs.

To the east our wastewater treatment facility is at risk. If flooded, it will have to be shut down along with our drinking water supply. Just three weeks ago, the city of Coronado's wastewater treatment facility was flooded, causing a catastrophe for 22,000 residents. This proposed project will protect our facilities.

But what about the area north of the project? There are 22 homes identified which will benefit from $25M earmarked to elevate and protect those structures or, pay for their flood insurance for at least 20 years. Those homeowners are not being ignored by this project.

To answer Measure M's opponents' assertion that the project will result in urban sprawl, Woodland voters have enacted an Urban Limit Line. No additional development that is already planned within the General Plan or within the Urban Limit Line will be enabled by the construction of these flood safety improvements. None.

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 >> In 2004 voters rejected a project that would only build a land levee. The levee would only divert water from coming into the city. It would have done so by holding back water thereby displacing it to the north and increasing flood depths in the unprotected area. The city of Woodland was mindful of this concern when seeking alternatives and to ensure our neighbors to the north were considered in any alternative.

Measure M proposes a substantially different project that not only has an eastwest levee, but now includes a substantial canal designed to capture flood water from the northwest and to channel it south of the levee and then direct it to the settling basin east of Woodland. The Army Corps of Engineers has concluded that this project will not increase flood depths in most of the area north of the project. At the eastern end, there will be increased flood depths. Negotiations with affected property owners have been ongoing with at least $25M available for flow easements across their lands.

Whatever your opinion may be about climate change, we can't deny that we are certainly experiencing new weather events. We have just endured two back-to-back “atmospheric rivers.”. No one knows what is coming next. Our Pajaro River neighbors didn't expect what happened to them nor did San Diego residents expect the violent storms they just experienced. The time is now to make sure we are protected from the substantial risk of flooding.

In January 1997 this writer was still a police lieutenant. I recall the major storms hitting Northern California when Cache Creek overtopped again. I clearly remember residents of north Woodland panicking as waters neared their homes. As a Council member, I am obligated to protect our residents with measures that are within our reach, such as Measure M.

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 >> In their study, the Army Corps of Engineers identified 26 options to protect the Woodland community. Federal policy only funds the amount required to implement the lowest cost feasible solution. Measure M meets those criteria. The $326M estimate to build is half of the potential losses of $650M, thereby remaining within the required benefit/cost ratio.

Some opponents of Measure M prefer a solution that would armor and elevate the levees on Cache Creek combined with cleaning out the creek's interior. This solution only removes 22 additional homes out of the flood plain. The biggest problem with that idea is that the cost estimate for this solution is $600M — twice as much as Measure M! It also significantly fails the benefit /cost ratio requirement. That is why the proposed project includes up to $25M for flowage easements, home elevations, or flood insurance for many years for those owners north of the project.

Measure M provides a greater safety plan for a greater portion of the community, at the same time eliminating the need for flood insurance for nearly all homeowners in the affected area. Voters need to know that the federal government does not pay to protect farmland from flooding. The solution to farmland flooding is to let the land dry out and start farming again. We have seen this many times over the years as the Yolo Bypass has flooded only to be followed by rice plantings within weeks. No solution providing protection to Woodland can avoid providing flood protection to land south and east of the area of concern. These lands are outside the Urban Limit Line and not included in the General Plan. No development can occur in that area without a vote of the citizens.