Sacramento County supervisors had in front of them eminently reasonable growth guidelines to limit air pollution, traffic gridlock and suburban sprawl.

But with developers squawking in their ears, supervisors are moving toward watering down the rules. That's bad for the environment, bad for taxpayers and bad for the county's long-term prospects.

There would be too much leeway for new subdivisions and other projects that aren't needed, that would create burdensome costs for infrastructure and that could set up Sacramento County for another housing bust.

To counter developers' voices, residents need to bend the board's ear about this wrong course at a public hearing today. It's time for a public outcry similar to the one that persuaded supervisors in 2007 to reject a proposal by Angelo K. Tsakopoulos to expand the county's urban growth boundary so his company could develop 3,400 rural acres along the El Dorado County border.

The county board plans to discuss the growth guidelines again on Sept. 14 and vote on them later this fall. Growth management has been by far the most contentious element of updating the county's general plan through 2030.

An early draft called for opening up huge swaths of rural land to development by extending the urban growth area to include 12,000 acres along Jackson Highway in the south and 8,000 acres along Grant Line Road near Rancho Cordova.

Steve Szalay, the outgoing interim county executive, wisely stopped the process to get better information on whether all that development was needed, given the housing crash and the recession.

A consultant confirmed that nowhere near that much open land is needed to meet the expected demand for new housing over the next two decades. It said the demand could be met with projects already in the works, plus allowing development in the relatively small West of Watt area.

Any other development proposals, the consultant and county staff agreed, should be allowed only if they meet "smart growth" criteria that encourage mass transit and shorter commutes, and if they show how roads, utility lines and other infrastructure would be financed.

Then in March, Attorney General Kamala Harris strongly suggested to supervisors that they should go along with the staff and consultant recommendation to comply with state laws – AB 32, designed to reduce global warming, and SB 375 to encourage mass transit. If they backtracked, the county could end up in court. Harris' office continues to monitor supervisors' deliberations.

But no surprise – big builders and developers were not happy with the direction the plan was taking.

Responding to their complaints, supervisors directed county staff to loosen the proposed "smart growth" criteria and make meeting them easier as well.

Environmental groups and others are justified in worrying that developers would use this flexibility to win approval for projects that would worsen sprawl. Supervisors, who count on builders and developers to help bankroll their campaigns, are often too susceptible to their pleas.

The public would be best served by a strict, sensible growth guide – like the one that the consultant and staff originally recommended – where the rules mean something.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.