Do We Need Clean Jobs or More Forest?

Who wants more jobs for Santa Cruz? Are people really against more jobs in an economy where Santa Cruz county is still maintaining  greater than 10 percent unemployment, down from the peak of 15.5% in February 2010, but still way up from 4.1 percent in October 2006. Even more, it isn’t Wal-Mart or some other giant corporation, but good, clean, University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC).

On Wednesday, March 7th, 2012, at 9:30 in the morning on the fifth floor (room 525) of the Santa Cruz County Government Building at 701 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz, the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO) will meet. This is not just any old meeting either. At this meeting the committee will vote whether or not to allow UCSC to expand via an additional water allocation. And by expand, we are talking about an additional 3,000 students by 2020.

This expansion involves more students, more housing, more buildings. That means more people spending money at Santa Cruz businesses, more construction jobs, and all around more money in the local economy. I constantly hear complaints and saw signs at the Occupy Protests about how bad the economy is here, how tough it is to make a living, and how much we all would like more jobs for everyone. Well, here is a golden opportunity, yet people are fighting it.

Who could possibly be against an opportunity for more jobs? People like officers from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) arguing that there are not sufficient water supplies for the expansion which will put endangered salmon species at greater risk. The so-called LRDP Resistance which consists mainly of students who don’t want to see 120 acres of forest cleared for buildings, roads, and research facilities. A group called Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives calls for greater water conservation measures and a new water conservation plan and points to the NMFS statements regarding water supplies as supporting their argument against expansion.

Are the people against the expansion of UCSC right?

The Santa Cruz City Council passed by a unanimous vote on February 28, 2012 a water neutrality policy regarding UCSC water. The university would not need to pay for conservation measures until they hit 206 million gallons per year which is based on the 1997 consumption. This council measure means there is sufficient supply until 206 million gallons is hit and then more severe conservation measures get put in place.

Furthermore, there are plans for a water desalination plant in the works. This desalination plant is a joint project between Soquel Creek Water District (SCWD) and the City of Santa Cruz to convert up to 2.5 million gallons of seawater per day into usable tap water. The cost is projected up to $100 million but will provide a fresh, new source beyond the over-utilized wells for SCWD and the yearly variable surface supplies for Santa Cruz.

Are the opponents of expansion really against people getting jobs that need jobs? Do they care about the plight of their unemployed neighbors? Is keeping one small section of forest more important than the local economy and the future of Santa Cruz? What do Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives and LRDP Resistance propose for jobs in the county?

I am concerned that the opponents' extreme environmentalism trumps any concern for the people in our county, the opportunities for young people, the ability to make a living and not become homeless, and the general welfare for humans.