EDITOR: This November’s EID election involves questions of judgment and insight, not only for candidates but also for the public. The most recent example is the meaning of support of two candidates by a Political Action Committee, “El Dorado County Farmers, Businesses, and Homebuilders for Responsible Water Policy.”
The PAC member with the most money is Parker Development, which drew lots of attention. Other PAC members that I’m aware of are connected mainly with agriculture, wine, the county Chamber of Commerce, and the Board of Realtors. The usual rumbles of “candidates in bed with developers” started circulating, even though development decisions are made by the county, not by EID.
So I called Kirk Bone at Parker and asked some questions. He said very candidly that Parker’s interest was in security of EID water rights. The PAC had interviewed all four candidates for two seats on the EID board, found that two were very attentive to water rights, and two were not so attentive. The PAC decided to support the candidates who were more likely to pursue secure water rights, and the PAC member with the most money (Parker) paid most of the cost for a couple mailers. So far it sounds logical.
Then some public “connected with developers” backlash started. At least in terms of water rights, some suggested something like “Horrors, the better candidates are supported by big developer. Let’s elect the others.” Our county’s populace has a lot of mixed feelings about development, but my opinion is that we should stay logical: If water rights are good, let’s protect them. Let’s handle development issues in county government, where the decisions about it are made, instead of taking a stand that can jeopardize the water supply for all of us.
Not only did this PAC feel that Dr. Dale Coco was the most qualified person for the EID Board in Division 4, but so did the Slow- and No-Growth advocates. Why did both sides choose Dr. Coco? He is the better candidate.
El Dorado Hills