This story was originally published by Fresnoland.
A new town the size of Fowler was greenlit by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday — despite no answers on the project’s water supply.
On Monday, Fresnoland reported that Millerton Lake can hold Friant Ranch’s backup water for only one year — too little to carry the town through a repeat of the 2014-2015 drought. County planners missed the gap because they relied on a 2008 water analysis written before that drought hit.
Tuesday’s hearing was the county’s last chance to fix the problem. Supervisors heard their own lawyer confirm Fresnoland’s reporting on the record — and unanimously approved the project’s environmental review anyway.
“There’s paper water, and then there’s real water,” Supervisor Luis Chavez said.
The county’s blindspot could leave officials in a public health crisis – scrambling to find emergency water for thousands of people.
The board certified the Ranch’s environmental review once county lawyer Doug Sloan told supervisors that the developer, not the county, would pay to defend the vote in court.
“I think they’ve been adequately addressed to my satisfaction,” Supervisor Garry Bredefeld said of the water questions.
Supervisor Brian Pacheco cast a lone no vote on a later motion related to other zoning changes for the project.
Vote follows patterns of county water problems and state bailouts
Fresno County’s foothill subdivisions have a track record of water failures, and supervisors acknowledged as much on Tuesday. Supervisor Brian Pacheco said the board had dealt with “issue after issue of water” in the area in recent months. Many members of the public who spoke on Tuesday were worried that the Supervisors were voting themselves into another water mistake.
Initially, Friant Ranch’s lawyers tried to deny Fresnoland’s reporting.
“A newspaper article is not evidence. It’s full of hearsay,” said James Moose, a lawyer for the developer.
“I would just respectfully urge you to approve the project,” he said.
But on Tuesday, it was revealed that county counsel Doug Sloan had reached out to the Bureau of Reclamation after Fresnoland reported the issue.
Sloan told the board he had confirmed with the Bureau that the water could not be stored in Millerton Lake for multiple years, as county planning staff had assumed in their staff report.
County staff erroneously claimed Friant Ranch had a “multi-year surface water supply,” concluding the proposal had a “more than adequate” plan to address future drought scenarios.
The hearing was a rare look into how county leaders, in real time, reason about conflicting information and risks to public health.
Would the county really approve a subdivision knowing that its water analysis was based on bad information?
Yes.
After knowing that the developer would pay any legal bills, the county simply took the developer’s team at their word that everything would work out all right.
“Are you confident that even in a drought situation, you would have ample water supply for those residents?” Chavez asked the developer’s lawyer.
“Yes, yes, I am,” Wagner said.
The only person on the board who appeared uncomfortable with the whole affair was Pacheco.
As the hearing went on, Pacheco, a farmer with a knowledge of water law and regulation, physically grimaced.
“I see our colleagues in Madera are putting successful project after successful project on the map … it would seem like we should be able to do that on this side,” said Pacheco. “But in our experience, we haven’t been able to do that yet.”
While Madera County also deals with many shades of water problems, Fresno County’s were truly catastrophic: one subdivision got so bad, its water got contaminated with uranium.
“I don’t know if it’s developers, planning, or what the issue is.”
Pacheco voted to certify the final environmental review anyway.
Critics say the county acknowledged key facts that should have opened up the water supply assessment to an updated environmental review – one that would have required the developers to analyze a 2014-2015 drought scenario. An updated 2022 water memo prepared by the developer did not include new data on water availability, instead copy-and-pasting old data from 2008.
“Your board and your staff have already recognized that there have been changed conditions and new information,” said Radley Reep, a Clovis resident, who works closely with the League of Women Voters, a non-profit that has sued Friant Ranch in the past. “Because you modified your [environmental review] for that very same purpose.”
Reep told the board how he expected Friant Ranch’s fight to end.
“If this goes to court, the court will overturn you in two seconds for recognizing changed conditions and new information, and not allowing the public to participate in that discussion.”