Imagine, Manteca having a population of 110,000 in 25 years.

It isn’t far-fetched.

City-financed studies for water service projects growth forces could swell the number of Manteca’s residents from 67,000 today to over 110,000 by 2025.

The numbers for nearby communities such as Tracy are even more gargantuan.

The model used to determine the population Manteca may have to provide water for in 2025 assumes the city’s 3.9 percent growth cap is pushed off and on for the next 16 years.

The Great Valley Center think tank based in Modesto a few years back issued its Agricultural Land Conservation study that was undertaken at the request of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

The study is based on a premise that virtually no one disputes. The number of people living in the 300-mile long fertile Central Valley stretching from the base of Mt. Shasta in the north to the Tehachapi mountains in the south will swell from 6.2 million today to 15.6 million by 2040.

The Central Valley’s growth rate is projected by the state Department of Finance to expand at a pace 20 to 25 percent faster than the rest of the state. There are many reasons ranging from increased migration to increased birth rates. The biggest factor, though, are economics. Housing costs are dramatically lower than in California’s coastal areas.

The threat this poses to prime agricultural land is serious.  The report notes that “as recently as 1950, Los Angeles County was still the largest agricultural producing county in the nation.” It also notes a land use survey of L.A. County taken between 1936 and 1939 eerily reflects the current pattern occurring in the Central Valley today along its main artery, Highway 99.

Growth is necessary to keep an economy going strong.

It doesn’t, though, have to be at such a high cost that it plays major havoc to some of the world’s richest farmland or destroys the very lifestyle that attracts people to the Central Valley.

The biggest challenge to local leaders is how to direct growth without derailing the economic vitality of the region whether it is in agricultural-related jobs or non-farm employment.

There needs to be an ultimate urban boundary established and blessed by the voters to assure Manteca will never grow beyond a certain point.

Such a strategy will only work, though, if the San Joaquin County supervisors hold fast to the 20-acre minimum building rule in agricultural zones regardless of what type of pressure is applied.

A farm belt around Manteca would be similar to the urban greenbelt measure adopted by San Jose voters that puts an ultimate limit on where that city may grow.

An appropriate ultimate number for Manteca may range between 90,000 and 110,000. Those are population numbers Manteca could easily reach by 2025 given projections from economic think tanks and state bureaucrats that California’s population will balloon from 38 million today to 45 million in 16 years.

Establishment of ultimate urban boundaries will accomplish several things. First, it will draw an honest-to-goodness line to stop urban sprawl and protect farming. It also would help Manteca avoid the same fate that has fallen upon other Central Valley cities that grew past the 100,000 mark during previous economic expansions such as Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, and Sacramento.

The older, core areas of those cities were essentially abandoned as development went to the less expensive and undeveloped land on the outskirts of the respective cities.

By establishing a maximum development pattern, it enhances the value of infill projects that may range from building on existing vacant land in the city’s core or rebuilding.

A city of 90,000 to 110,000 people provides a strong economic population base. As a small city, it can support a multitude of private sector endeavors ranging from the arts to a strong mixture of services, businesses and even jobs.

The question of property rights is resolved to a large degree by directing growth patterns that assure strong property values. Land within the urban area would have a definite value that would escalate as would rural land. Both rural and urban values would reflect the establishment of a finite supply.

It protects agriculture by enhancing the supply of farmland by assuring farmers can make investments and have certain expectations. It also means greater steps can be made to provide agriculture with the necessary tax breaks and other incentives to continue farming.

The city’s 3.9 percent annual growth cap is a great way to manage growth on a year-to-year basis. What Manteca needs, though, is an ultimate vision of where we will max out.

It is the only way the quality of life can be protected as well as enhanced.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, e-mail dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com