The Sacramento Valley: California's Great Exception?

The Sacramento River Watershed Program has released a fascinating online report on suburban sprawl and the demise of agriculture in the Sacramento Valley. It appears to be a work in progress, and the "best management practices" identified for governments to cope with sprawl are nothing new. But there is plenty of interesting information and analysis packed into the presentation. The GIS layer maps that accompany the text are especially noteworthy.

One of the more interesting observations related to the suburbanization and exurbanization of the Sacramento Valley concerns the availability of water. In most of the state, the availability of water is one of the principal checks on unrestrained sprawl. Not so in the Sacramento Valley, according to the authors:

Below the Delta and the federal and state pumping plants, water is the principal limiting factor for exurban sprawl. This is not the case for the Sacramento Valley and much of the Sierra foothills in the Sacramento Watershed. The groundwater basin in the Sacramento Valley recharges readily from the normally abundant rainfall in Northern California. In only a few areas has groundwater depletion become problematic, like in eastern Sacramento County where urban and medium density suburbs were allowed to develop solely reliant on groundwater pumping. Very likely, all the areas zoned for low density rural residential development have sufficient groundwater supplies.

Abundant groundwater resources are the exception in California, where most development has depended on guarantees of imported water. Thus, when making predictions about the build-out of the Sacramento Watershed, it is not prudent to look at the patterns from Southern California where local water supplies were the limiting factor, or the Bay Area, where confined geography have restricted exurban rural residential growth. Other areas of the nation may provide more accurate models for the potential of exurban build-out in the Sacramento Watershed.

Groundwater-fed development will also differ from development in regions that rely on surface water (including state or federal project water) in another important aspect. While surface water diversions are highly regulated and governed by a complex system of water rights and contractual obligations, comprehensive regulation of groundwater use in California is much less developed. Where the state plays an active role in overseeing the use of the state's rivers, streams, and reservoirs, the regulation of groundwater extraction is mostly a local matter. The jurisdictions charged with regulating groundwater uses are also those most directly embroiled in local disputes about land use and development. The state has little direct power to ensure the sustainable use of groundwater resources.

New York to Sacramento: Moo

The self-proclaimed national newspaper of record turns sets its intrepid reporters loose on the local political scene. The result? Some attention for Sacramento's "hardscrabble" Oak Park neighborhood; an embarrassing geographical gaffe by one of the leading mayoral candidates (halfway between the Bay Area and Yosemite?); a man-on-the-street interview with a local water lawyer; and another iteration of the tired cowtown cliche.

View the article here.

City of Trees, City of Fools

Once upon a time, someone started the rumor that Sacramento was the “City of Trees.” I am not sure who is responsible for this very local urban legend. A longtime environmental activist friend of mine once told me that the Sacramento Tree Foundation is responsible for manufacturing this enchanting bit of local boosterism.

Now, I am a big fan of trees. And I appreciate the work of the Sacramento Tree Foundation. But it’s a little disturbing to see how readily the locals have lapped up their own propaganda Kool-Aid when it comes to trees. Somewhere along the line, the “City of Trees” monicker went from slogan to fiercely held local belief. Someone claimed that the city had “more trees per capita” than any other city besides Paris. And for as long as I have lived here, I have heard that claim repeated at various times by people attempting to extol the beauty of our city. The media also picked up on the idea-- check out these pieces by NPR/KQED and the august New York Times repeating the claim.

I can claim no firsthand knowledge of the relative densities of urban forests or the number of “trees per capita” of any particular metropolitan region-- particularly those in France. But as someone who has traveled a bit beyond the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys, I confidently offer this observation: Sacramento is definitively NOT the “City of Trees.” And the idea that we have more “trees per capita” than any other city this side of the Atlantic is pure fantasy.

I grew up in Indiana, and I went to school on the Gulf Coast. I have seen a fair bit of the South and the Midwest east of the Mississippi. In either of those regions, any two-bit town with a little undeveloped land could easily claim a higher density of trees, and a higher ratio of “trees per capita,” than our fair city. Most of those areas of the country were either forest or swamp. Consequently, you don’t have to think about planting trees. Any piece of land, left to its own devices, will spontaneously sprout a variety of second-growth species of tree. The roads and drainage ditches are lined with thick underbrush and canopy-producing forest. In most cases, I doubt that much thought went into the cultivation of these trees. But there they are, nonetheless-- a product of a wet climate and a legacy of a woodland ecology that humans have not quite managed to subdue.

I notice that the Sacramento Tree Foundation continues to perpetuate a slightly more modest version of the Forested Sacramento Myth. They claim here that it is the “beauty of Sacramento’s tree canopy” that is second only to Paris. In my not-so-humble opinion, this claim is no less laughable than the claim that our sprawling metropolis is among the most tree-dense cities in the world.

Does it seem as though I am more irked by the “City of Trees” myth than I should be? Perhaps. In my opinion, it is just another indicator of this city’s fantastic inferiority complex and its desperate and pathetic attempt to fashion an identity for itself. City leaders and city residents cling to the strangest things in hopes of proving that Sacramento is a unique and interesting place to live-- whether it be gentle white lies about our urban forest, or less innocent lies about the importance of professional basketball to Sacramento’s civic life. At least the lies about trees are relatively inexpensive.

Mid-Day Biking Holiday

May is bike month in Sacramento, and Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates encourages you to bike to work.


What better way to celebrate than to skip work for a bike ride?





Somewhere between 50 and 100 cyclists, by my count, joined SABA in a lunchtime ride from the State Capitol through midtown, via the new bike lanes on either side of 19th Street. The pace was leisurely, and our presence was impressive! We had the air of a well-behaved Critical Mass rally.


I could have spent hours admiring the broad range of bikes that turned out. Expensive road bikes, retro fixies, fancy single speeds, folding bikes, recumbents, kids on single speed BMXers with sagging chains-- we had all types of two-wheelers in all types of conditions.


Surprisingly, the reaction from the motorists who might have been inconvenienced by our mass presence was overall positive. Only one asshole attempted to pass us through a left turn. And by contrast, many autos rolled down windows to enquire as to the occasion for our ride, and we got lots of supportive honks and huzzahs! Here's hoping Sacramento develops its pro-bicycle trend!