Another “Untruth” by the Yes on Measure L Campaign
By Alan Pryor and Pam Nieberg
The Yes on Measure L campaign has been falsely characterizing the soils on which the WDAAC project is to be built as “unproductive” or “low quality alkaline soils solely used for winter animal feed crops”. Their most recent mailer contained the following graphic:
These claims are demonstrably untrue. In fact, the soil is suitable for a variety of human crops as characterized by the Yolo Co Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. In summary, according to the EIR certified by the City Council, the lower approximately 50% (36.2 acres) of the site is Brentwood clay loam. Approximately a third of the soils (26.75 acres ) on the site directly above the Brentwood soils are Marvin silty clay. Above that are Willows clay (11.44 acres), and only a tiny piece (0.56 acres) in the upper north west piece of the site is Pescadero silty clay/saline-alkaline.
The soils are classified as of “local importance” which are defined as cultivated farmland having soils that meet criteria for “prime” or “statewide importance” if the land is irrigated. The following information on these soils is excerpted from the WDAAC Final Environmental Impact Report including the following soil map of the project
“3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
THE AOI (AREA OF INTEREST) INCLUDES THE ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS (74.49 ACRES ON-SITE, AND 11.53 ACRES OFF-SITE).
SOURCE: USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, SOIL SURVEY OF YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1972.
Brentwood silty clay loam. This soil is found in the southern half of the project site. Brentwood soils are on nearly level to gently sloping fans and formed in valley fill from sedimentary rocks. These soils are well to moderately well drained. They have very slow to medium runoff and moderately slow permeability. Most areas are irrigated and are used for tree fruit, nut crops, vegetables, and field crops. Vegetation is annual grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks.(emphasis added for human food crops)
Marvin silty clay loam. This soil is found in the northern half of the project site. Marvin soils are on nearly level flood plains at elevations of 10 to 100 feet under 
annual grasses and forbs. They formed in fine textured alluvium from mixed sources. These soils are moderately well to somewhat poorly drained. They have slow runoff and slow permeability. Common uses include: irrigated and dry cropland and pasture; and grain, field crops, sugar beets, alfalfa and rice crops.(emphasis added for human food crops)
Pescadero silty clay, saline-alkali. This soil is found in the northwestern corner of the project site. Pescadero soils are in basins and formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock. These soils are poorly drained or ponded on concave slopes. They have very slow runoff and very slow permeability. These soils are used mainly for livestock grazing. Some reclaimed areas are used for irrigated field, row crops and irrigated pasture. Commonly cultivated crops are sugar beets, barley, alfalfa, corn and tomatoes.(emphasis added for human food crops)
Willows clay, alkali. This soil is found in the northern third of the project site. Willow soils are in basins and formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources. These soils are poorly drained. They have slow runoff and very slow permeability. These soils are generally used for growing rice, sugar beets and safflower.”(emphasis added for human food crops)
“IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.2-1: Project implementation may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses (Significant and Unavoidable)(emphasis added)
The project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance (84.27 acres), Farmland of Local Potential (1.56 acres), and Urban and Built-Up Land (2.09 acres), as shown in Figure 3.2-1. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. While the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the California Department of Conservation, the project site does contain prime soils as defined by the Yolo County Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. According to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program Farmland shall be considered prime farmland if it meets the definition of “prime agricultural land” in Government Code Section 51201. Government Code Section 51201 states that prime agricultural land means any of the following:(emphasis added)
(1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.
(2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating.
(3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(4) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a non-bearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre.
(5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.
As described in Table 3.2-3, Brentwood silty clay loam (BrA) and Marvin silty clay loam (Mf) (if irrigated) both qualify as prime agricultural land under the Yolo County Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. Conversion of important farmland as a result of project implementation is considered a potentially significant impact. “(emphasis added)
SUMMARY – As is apparent in the highlighted text excerpted from the project EIR, almost all of the soils found in the project have non-animal feed usage possibilities in stark contrast to the statements made by the Yes on Measure L campaign. This will have additional significant impacts on the land that is offered for mitigation for this project that are required to be at least as agriculturally productive as those consumed in this proposed project. To date, no mitigation lands have been offered by the project proponents
The Davis Vanguard has spent considerable effort rating both objective statements of facts and subjective opinions made by the No on Measure L campaign as “falsehoods” or “untruths” without further clarifying why these statements or opinions are untrue. It would seem appropriate that this otherwise completely verifiable untruth by the Yes on Measure L campaign would have been subjected to the same scrutiny.
A portion of the property on the south has soil that drains well enough to support higher value crops. The north part does not. All of the soils to the north and west drain poorly and are not high quality farmland. Conserving this site in order to protect farmland makes no sense from a planning standpoint. If Davis is going to annex and develop any peripheral land, this is the lowest quality soil overall.
The fact that some crops are listed as possible under soil type descriptions does not mean that all those crops are suitable on all locations where those soils exist. The actual cropping history of the site would be more relevant. If high value crops could be grown there, the farmer would be growing them.
Contrary to the assertion by the authors, it is not a “completely verifiable untruth” that the site is “unproductive” in a crop production sense. Property lines don’t follow soil contours. If the farm has been managed largely for animal feed crops then we can conclude that the developers’ assertion is accurate.
Can someone confirm that the homes of Alan Pryor and Pam Nieberg do not sit on prime farmland?
Jeff: Your question demonstrates that it’s a lot easier to conserve farmland, before it’s developed.
I had no idea that the Southern half of the site consists of higher-quality soils, and that the entire site can support crops for human consumption. (As if that was the only criteria, to begin with.) And, that there’s actually a mix of soils in the Northern portion, as shown on the map above.
Actually, the vast majority of the site consists of prime agricultural land:
The northern half of the property has poorly drained soil. “Somewhat poorly drained. Water is removed slowly so that the soil is wet at a shallow depth for significant periods during the growing season. The occurrence of internal free water commonly is shallow to moderately deep and transitory to permanent. Wetness markedly restricts the growth of mesophytic crops, unless artificial drainage is provided.”
This article is misleading and would require significant technical explanation which simply isn’t worth the effort. Of all the soils peripheral to Davis that might be annexed for development, the northwest quadrant has the worst soils and would be best for development if your overall goal is to conserve prime farmland. South and east should be conserved as much as possible.
I’m not going to go any further on this. Simple answer: if it was suited to high value crops, they’d be growing them there.
No Ron, the point is that there is a value to the human condition that all land can provide and there are trade-offs for every use, and to sit on a piece of prime farm land and claim that other development be denied because of the same is great hypocrisy.
California in general does not lack prime farmland. It lacks the water to irrigate it. But hey, we have a fantastic over-budget bullet train to nowhere.
Jeff: There is no “shortage” of farmland conversion (for other uses) across the region, state, country, and world. Pretty sure I can find statistics regarding how fast this is occurring. That’s why it is raising concern, and is the reason that some limited efforts are being made to slow this process.
I understand that some modern farming technologies (e.g., dependent upon the use of fossil fuels and poisons) are temporarily muting (some of) the concern. And, as you noted, water is an issue (as new urban demands on water supplies will continue to displace farming).
Another thing that’s occurring (worldwide) is the conversion of natural areas for farming and other human uses, ultimately threatening other species (and the environment, in general). Farming in these areas is often subject to less safety and environmental regulation than occurs in the U.S.
This trend is supported by developed countries seeking cheaper food supplies (while simultaneously turning away from farming its own land), despite the fossil fuels needed to transport it from distant countries.
Like I said, California is not short on high quality farm land, only water to irrigate it.
Jeff: Water is increasingly being used to support sprawl, vs. farming. (Therefore, sprawl impacts farming via direct conversion of land, and via impacts on water supply.) I believe that some farming interests have been selling off their water rights to support such sprawl. (In fact, didn’t the new Davis/Woodland water supply depend upon this type of transaction, via the Conaway Ranch agreement?)
It looks like you might have found your statistics within the document listed below. That document also states the following:
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/agvision/docs/Agricultural_Loss_and_Conservation.pdf
Why is it between Ron and Jeff, neither can focus on the issue at hand.
Craig: The article references conversion of farmland. Looking at one property in regard to this overall trend is akin to not considering cumulative impacts in an EIR. (Which coincidentally, is also the case regarding traffic generated by multiple new developments, in regard to the WDAAC EIR.)
No Ron – Farming uses 80% of the water and that has not changed materially over the years.
That statement is an assumption, not necessarily supported by fact. Property owners who hope for development may simply choose not to invest in/plant higher-value crops on a property. Regardless, I’m not sure that the monetary value of crops is the only criteria. Again, the vast majority of the site consists of prime agricultural land, which I’m surprised to learn.
Given your professional knowledge and background, I had previously relied upon your description of the conditions on this property, as stated on this blog. I should have known better, than to do so.
I’m (also) not planning to “go any further” regarding this. The article itself primarily discusses facts, not opinions.
A couple of charts that are helpful from the draft EIR – it appears that most of the soil is fairly good. So I think Alan’s analysis here is fairly accurate.
Re: Mf. The Storie index of 62 puts it at the low end of suitability. The “special management needs” would be drainage. That would require a place to drain to. It can’t drain east due to property uses. It can’t drain west due to same or denser soils. It would have to drain south onto the better soil, or onto the road. It can’t readily be mitigated. That is the upper half, roughly, of the site. The better soil is a pocket of good soil surrounded by either denser, poorer-draining soils, the road, or by existing development. Working to retain that better soil would be pointless.
Agree with Don, there is no reason to preserve this land just for the soil.
Don: Since you brought it up, isn’t drainage an issue regarding the proposed development, as well? (Perhaps even more so, due to the proposed development itself?)
Seems to me that there’s been some discussion regarding that, on the Vanguard (and in the EIR).
Also, the majority of the site actually consists of the “90” Storie Index (not “62”) – according to the chart that David posted. But, both are prime agricultural lands.
For folks who are interested in more information about the soils of our region, here is a great resource: https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/
Don
“If high value crops could be grown there, the farmer would be growing them.”
I have some questions for you about this if you will go a little further. This statement appears valid on its face. But I am wondering if other factors might not be in play. Factors such as the cost of farmer workers or costs related to overhead dictating the type of crops planted. The age and interests of the farmer. Other financial factors that might be occupying his or her time & interest.
I am wondering about these because I have had posters here make false assumptions about why I was choosing to not maximize the profits of properties that I owned. From this experience, I know that there are sometimes factors other than just profit that drive decision making. So the question is, do you know that your above statement is correct from knowing the individual? Or is this an assumption you are making based on presumed profitability?
There are a fair amount of people like Tia that don’t “maximize the value of their residential real estate” for a lot of different reasons, such as helping a family member, helping out someone without a lot of money, and even many that just don’t want to deal with fixing the place up and renting it for more money. There are VERY few (if any) people in the state with big 60+ acre parcels of farmland who have them farmed by professionals that tell the people they hire to plant lower value crops since they don’t want to spend or give away the money extra money they would get every year.