Will Sacramento leaders make the right decision on the future of the Natomas Basin? | Opinion

One day, I saw a pair of Osprey build a nest atop a utility pole.

Another day, I watched a Great Egret pluck aquatic creatures out of a canal and swallow them like popcorn shrimp.

And on yet another day, I saw thousands of Snow Geese fly in unison near Highway 99, creating what looked like a vibrating cloud.

Opinion

The scenes happened on or next to property owned by the Natomas Basin Conservancy, a nonprofit organization that has collected fees from local governments and land donations from developers to protect threatened species since 1997. The Conservancy focuses on 22 plants and animals in the Natomas Basin, an area running from Garden Highway to south Sutter County, and from the Sacramento River to Steelhead Creek. Surveys have found that the Swainson’s Hawk, Giant Garter Snake and other threatened animals have maintained or increased populations during the Conservancy’s tenure.

But now the Conservancy’s important work is under threat from three major development proposals:

• The city of Sacramento is considering the Airport South Industrial Project, which would turn 475 acres of vacant land into industrial and commercial properties next to preserved habitat and residences.

• Sacramento County initiated an environmental review for the proposed Upper West Side, which would turn 2,000 acres of farmland into a residential and commercial project on the Garden Highway in unincorporated Natomas.

• The county has also received an application to convert 5,675 acres of farmland just north of the city into a residential and commercial development.

The Conservancy plan was originally approved in 1997. It was subsequently challenged by environmentalists in federal court, resulting in a new plan in 2003. This plan is what allowed North Natomas to be developed.

The county is not a participant in the plan, but it is subject to state and federal laws that form the basis of it, including laws protecting the Swainson’s Hawk and the Giant Garter Snake. State and federal wildlife agencies, among others, will have to decide whether to permit the projects.

Development in the Natomas Basin wasn’t possible for several years because of a federal moratorium on construction until levee improvements were made. In the meantime, the population of the Swainson’s Hawk and Giant Garter Snake have remained consistent or improved, according to a report prepared for the Conservancy last year.

The Conservancy needs to obtain 8,750 acres before completion. It has about 5,200 acres, or about 60% of what it needs. State and federal permitted development in Sutter County’s portion of the basin will contribute the remainder, but not if more development is permitted in Sacramento County, reducing available mitigation land and drawing urbanization away from Sutter’s planned development.

The plan was predicated on 15,000 acres of agricultural land not being developed. Little or none would remain if these three developments are approved.

The Sacramento City Council would have to approve an annexation to extend the city for the Airport South Industrial Project to get built, and the county Board of Supervisors would have to approve an extension of the Urban Services Boundary to allow all three projects.

Airport South must also receive approval from the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, made up of elected officials from the county, the city and other jurisdictions. The commission’s top goals are to “preserve agricultural and open space lands” and “discourage sprawl.”

Given those priorities, it would seem like a no-brainer that LAFCo would reject the Airport South Industrial Project. But if you know the history of Sacramento County, you know better.

Speak up for the Natomas Basin to protect the region’s wildlife heritage.

Brad Branan is a freelance journalist and photographer who sits on the boards of the Environmental Council of Sacramento and Sierra Club, Sacramento Group, both of which oppose development in the Natomas Basin.