Taxpayer dollars down the drain?

As the Gold Rush project has evolved, several catch phrases have come to mind. “Lipstick on a pig” is one. “Pig in a poke” another. But lately, the most appropriate phrase seems to be “bait and switch.” Here’s why …

Back in 2001, Sutter Creek and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority were planning for the day ARSA could no longer dispose of wastewater in Ione. The city and ARSA paid $750,000 for the right to spray 1,300 acre feet of wastewater a year on the Noble Ranch, a large parcel on the edge of town. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

The Noble Ranch is the site of the proposed Gold Rush Ranch subdivision. Here's how the Amador Ledger Dispatch described the deal, "In 2001, the city negotiated a public/private partnership to purchase the land, with developers of Gold Rush Golf Resort so that the city and ARSA kept disposal rights and rights to lines, reservoirs and easements on the property."

Ever since then, the public has been led to believe that Gold Rush's golf course and other irrigation needs would solve Sutter Creek's wastewater disposal problem. Just a few weeks ago, a Ledger reporter praised Gold Rush for this very reason.

Apparently the reporter hadn't read the draft EIR for Gold Rush, which was released not long ago. As it turns out, the development itself will keep the city from fully using its disposal easement on the Noble Ranch.

Here's what the pertinent section of the EIR says, "Increased treatment capacity at the WWTP, including that required to treat Project-generated wastewater, will also increase treated effluent disposal and storage requirements. The City retains a 1,300 afy treated effluent disposal spray easement on the 833-acre Noble Ranch portion of the Project site. The Project's use of recycled water from the WWTP will provide for utilization/disposal of approximately 347 afy of this amount (with the development of the golf course intended to facilitate the bulk of this disposal). The remaining 953 afy of the easement will not be available on the Project site as a result of development and other land uses that will be incompatible with use of the spray easement." (emphasis added)

What does it mean? The development of the Noble Ranch will keep ARSA and Gold Rush from using the full wastewater easement they paid for back in 2001.

Further, the development itself will eventually generate more wastewater than anyone plans to use on the site. If Gold Rush is built as proposed, the city will have to find another place for that excess wastewater--as well as all the wastewater from the rest of Sutter Creek! I doubt that’s what the city and ARSA had in mind back when they helped buy the property.

It makes me wonder how long the city has known. One clue should have come in 2006, when Gold Rush released a plan that didn’t acknowledge the wastewater easement. According to a Ledger Dispatch story, ARSA and Sutter Creek City Manager Rob Duke took exception at that time.

The Gold Rush draft EIR indicates that the city is aware of the problem now. It says, “The City’s primary objectives are to ensure that development within the City is in compliance with the City’s General Plan and the City’s implementing ordinances. The City’s objectives also include retaining the existing 1,300 AFY effluent disposal spray easement on the Noble Ranch or ensuring that any loss of the existing easement disposal capacity is replaced without financial impact to the City. Replacement of spray easement capacity may be achieved through a combination of acquisition of easements on alternative effluent disposal sites, additional effluent storage facilities and fees to provide funding for use by the City in securing replacement effluent disposal capacity.” (emphasis added)

Gold Rush is clearly not the solution for Sutter Creek’s future wastewater disposal. And the city knows it. You just have to wonder what else will come to light about the project in the coming weeks.

The public hearing for the EIR is on Monday, August 25.

Jackson does need help, but not Jackson Hills

It looks like Jackson's City Council will complete the approval of the Jackson Hills project on Monday night, September 10. Some locals think the city council members have been "bought off" by the developers.

I don't. I think it's more likely that the council members feel like they have to do something to address the challenges facing Jackson today: a distressed downtown, the loss of sales tax-generating businesses to the county, and the need to develop wastewater disposal alternatives.

The council is approving Jackson Hills because it's been sold to them as the solution to these problems. And they've bought the package, despite the many questions that surround it.

It's an easy fix, right? Approve one subdivision and all of Jackson's problems will go away. Problem is, closer scrutiny shows that Jackson Hills is not the solution, and before long, the city will have the same problems it had before, compounded by the problems that come with Jackson Hills, including gridlock in the south part of town.

There are other options.

Let's take downtown first. Years ago, when the county government was based in Jackson, county workers went downtown to shop at lunch and after work (I worked briefly in the courthouse, so saw and did this myself). When the government center moved out to Argonaut Heights, the downtown merchants lost that business. Now that the county workers are back on Court Street, has anyone tried to lure them back downtown?

Let's see -- why would county workers -- or Sutter Amador Hospital employees -- shop in Jackson? Maybe if there were free shuttles at lunch time. Maybe if it were easy to grab a loaner bike at the workplace and pedal into town for a sandwich without risking your life in the process. Maybe if there were actually something to buy. Remember, Jackson used to have many businesses that catered primarily to local residents and people working nearby.

Perhaps local business owners need to look at the local market again. The city could help by funding some market research and making it available for free to local businesses, working with the two big employers in town, and going back to some of the good plans developed for downtown in the past that are now gathering dust on someone's shelf. A little economic gardening could go a long way.

Also, I've always thought that any big shopping center with a shady parking lot could do a lot more business in summer than those with acres upon acres of unshaded asphalt. Given the choice of shopping at a store with cool parking or one without, I know which one I'd pick on a hot summer day. Urban forest grants could green up Jackson's shopping center lots for those who aren't going to go downtown and make them more competitive with the businesses in Mart-hell.

The sales tax loss is a hard problem to solve. Jackson always had unusually high sales tax revenue, thanks to its car dealerships. One could see how big a problem that loss was going to be years ago when the county decided to create the Mario Biagi Sales Tax Sacrifice Zone in Martell.

Home Depot is trying to sell itself as the solution to this problem, while proposing to build in the historic viewshed below the Kennedy Mine. Surely there are other ways to help Jackson renew its business base.

Wastewater disposal is the third big challenge. Spraying treated wastewater on local ranch lands is one good solution. And unlike a golf course, irrigated cattle pastures don't come with 580 houses and nearly 6,000 car trips a day.

As Jackson works on long-term wastewater solutions, the city could immediately reduce its wastewater volume by conducting water audits for every household to identify water-wasting practices. It could also subsidize the purchase of low-flush toilets and modern, water-saving clothes washers.

A new washing machine of the right type uses only 35%-50% as much water as older models -- that's water going into the wastewater system today. Everyone wins -- the homeowner spends less on water and power and the city has less wastewater to treat. The city would save money, too. Muncipal wastewater treatment requires a great deal of electricity.

Just as there is no free lunch, there is no simple solution for Jackson's problems. But there are alternatives to a big, environmentally destructive, dumb-growth subdivision that threatens the operation of local ranches. I've name just a few here. I'm sure others could be developed with some concerted effort and creativity.

Real leadership for Jackson means moving ahead with that effort. And it means standing up and taking on these challenges with a view to long-term consequences, not opting for the easy short-term fix -- especially one as suspect as Jackson Hills.

What are "deciders" for?

After a long hard work week, the last thing I expected to be doing Friday night was writing a blogpost. But after reading the latest articles in the Amador Ledger Dispatch about wastewater and traffic, I just couldn't help myself. So I started this one.

Right now, the available excess wastewater treatment and disposal capacity in our county is quickly disappearing. Solving that problem will take millions of dollars, and it won't happen overnight.

Our roads are becoming increasingly jammed and there is no solution in sight -- especially considering local voters' distaste for taxes and the constraints imposed by our topography.

Meanwhile, the cities of Jackson and Sutter Creek, and the county itself are considering major development projects: Wicklow Way, Gold Rush, and Jackson Hills. And with the sale of the Howard Ranch to developers, Ione may see a major project in its future before too long. These subdivisions proposals are often written and talked about as if they're a done deal. But are they?

Subdivisions must be approved by a city council or board of supervisors, or in some cases, a planning commission. Developers do not have a right to convert a cattle pasture into houses just because they spend a lot of money on plans and studies. They must gain the approval of the local government first.

The local government must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to disclose the environmental impacts of the project. The project must be consistent with the local general plan and zoning code -- including the sections that address roads and other infrastructure. Ultimately, local officials must approve or reject the project in a discretionary vote.

And you know what? They can say no. They truly can. If they couldn't, the matter would never come to them for a decision, would it? Developers would just walk up to the permit counter, pay their fees, and start up the bulldozers.

In some cases, including situations where a project is inconsistent with a general plan, state law even requires the local council or supervisors to say no.

Here's what a League of California Cities publication on California's land use planning framework has to say about subdivision review, "After a public hearing, the local agency may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the map after making specific findings."

Of course, all of this is subject to myriad statutes and case law. But sometimes I wonder if our local media, local planners, and even our elected "deciders" understand that decisionmakers have any discretion at all. A plan is not a project. A proposal is not a subdivision. And when a community has limited wastewater and road capacity, it may not be prudent to approve large projects that would use up all that capacity, and more.

Communities, like families, ultimately have to live within their means -- whether those means are water, wastewater, schools, fire protection, roads, or child care facilities. If they don't, the consequences can be pretty dire.

Our deciders need to make decisions that are in the public interest. It's not an easy job. They are put under tremendous pressure by all of the competing interests in the community and California's post-Prop 13 funding realities. And they have to sort out myths from the facts: what is a "property right"? What does the law really require?

Still, the decisions are theirs to make. And that's what we elect them to do.

Articles on Amador wastewater and traffic.

California land use basics

California Goverment Code on subdivision approval

A plan does not a project make

The state's recent rejection of San Joaquin County's water rights application for the Mokelumne River is a good reminder of this simple fact: until it’s approved and built, a plan for a water project is only that — a plan.

This is especially important to remember as we plan for our county's future. The recently developed regional Integrated Water Management Plan includes a long list of water and wastewater projects, some of which are highly speculative.

Some of the projects in the IRWMP are as likely to fail as succeed. They may be too expensive. They may damage the environment too much. There may not be enough water in the rivers for them or enough land suitable for wastewater disposal. Or people may just find them unacceptable.

On Thursday night, Jim Abercrombie, general manager of the Amador Water Agency, told the Amador County General Plan Advisory Committee that water "will not be a limiting factor in the life" of the new general plan.

Now Jim may have meant: we have plenty of water to supply growth for the next 20 years -- which is true. We can add at least 30,000 to 40,000 people to our county's population based on current water supplies, even without water conservation, efficiency, or reuse programs.

However, what Jim said may have been interpreted as meaning that we can have unlimited growth, which is obviously not the case.

It all depends on whether we plan based on existing water sources or count on speculative projects that may never be built. Considering San Joaquin County's recent experience, as well as Amador County's failed Devil's Nose Project of the 1990s, we'd do well to focus on what is real today.