Lawmakers should leave us high and dry

THE IDEA THAT state government should have any role in deciding how and where development occurs in California has been battled over for generations in Sacramento. The simplest, most logical efforts to control growth have often been ground to a standstill by builders, developers, real estate associations and local governments, all of which usually carry more weight with the Legislature than does the public. So it’s not surprising that a critical new planning tool is having trouble in Sacramento.

Assembly Bill 802, written by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), is anything but a radical measure. It would require cities and counties to consider the risk to life and property from “reasonably foreseeable flooding” when they adopt or revise their general plans, which spell out where development can and cannot occur.

What’s amazing is planners don’t have to do this now. Current law merely says they “may” consider flood risk. That’s not good enough in a state where development is mushrooming on the floodplains of the Central Valley, where the governor has declared a state of emergency for the levees and where Sacramento is considered to be the second most at-risk city for flooding after New Orleans. If -- when -- it floods, it will put 400,000 people in danger and cause up to $15 billion in damage.

Last week, such predictions -- and the need for AB 802 -- came home to the 35,000 residents of Sacramento’s booming North Natomas district. Surrounded by rivers and canals, North Natomas used to be farmland and wetlands until its levees were strengthened a decade ago to allow for development. But now workers have found seepage in those levees that will cost $270 million to repair. Worse yet, once that money is spent, the levees won’t meet the city’s targeted standard of protection.

AB 802 can’t help North Natomas, but it could slow or stop developments nearby, especially on tracts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where California mountain runoff meets the San Francisco Bay. The delta -- 738,000 acres of sloughs and islands reclaimed from marshland by farmers more than a century ago -- lies below sea level, existing only because of 1,100 miles of levees, most of them old, ill-maintained and vulnerable. In the summer of 2004, a levee gave way for no apparent reason, flooding 12,000 acres. Rebuilding the levee, pumping out the water and fixing damage is expected to cost nearly $100 million. Yet the area is primed for development as sprawl moves north and east from the San Francisco Bay Area and south and west from Sacramento and Stockton.

Given all this, Wolk’s bill should have sailed through the Assembly. But when it came up for a vote in late January, it failed to pass on the first roll call, with 32 yes votes and 33 nays. The builders’ lobby, a potent force in Sacramento, argued the proposal would “slow down project approvals”; the California Chamber of Commerce called it a “job killer.” City and county governments were of little help -- most jealously guard their planning power even though they’re far too susceptible to development interests.

Wolk, a former mayor and county supervisor, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) began working the floor. They managed to hustle up nine more votes on a second roll call. The measure passed, 41 to 34, with 15 members absent or not voting -- mostly not voting. That the bill didn’t pass unanimously is shameful.

AB 802 now is in the state Senate. Word in the Capitol is that local governments might be “coming around,” perhaps to neutrality if not outright support. But expect the builders and their allies to be hard at work.

There is no legitimate reason for this measure not to pass this year. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who proposed a $2.5-billion flood management program for the Central Valley, should support the bill as it’s written. This issue is not just an intramural struggle over who gets to do growth planning in California but a matter of public safety. The state has the responsibility to protect its citizens and their property.