RECAP OF SPECIAL TIMBER RULES REQUEST
In 2003, as a defense against Measure O (subsequently defeated by Napa County voters in March 2004), and to placate a small vocal minority of shortsighted radical environmentalists, Napa County hired Jones & Stokes to write, and petitioned the California State Board of Forestry to enact, 32 “Special Local Rules” further restricting timber harvests in Napa County.
- 28 July 2003 - Stu Smith's letter to the BOF
- 31 July 2003 - NVLSA's letter to BOF
- 26 Feb 2004 - Letter from Stu Smith to BOF
- 27 Feb 2004 - Letter from Denise Levine to BOF
- 3 Mar 2004 - Letter from George Bachich to BOF
- 1 April 2004 - Letter from NVLSA to Napa Co. Supervisors
- 1 April 2004 - Letter from George Bachich
- The Board of Forestry
Fearing that these special local rules would further diminish the right, ability, and incentive for Napa County property owners to properly manage their forest lands for the health of the forest and for the general benefit of the environment, NVLSA opposed these special rules.
Several members of NVLSA wrote letters opposing these rules to the Board of Forestry and about a dozen of us traveled to Sacramento in September 2003 and again in March and April of 2004 to attend public hearings before the State Board of Forestry and to speak out against the special rules. Between the last two of those meetings, NVLSA requested and obtained reopening of the local public hearing before the Napa County Board of Supervisors on this Special Rules Request. However, despite articulate presentations by our members of the many compelling rational arguments against these Special Local Rules, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to send Supervisor Diane Dillon and her staff back to the Board of Forestry hearings to actively promote adoption of the new rules.
However, during the April 7, 2004 Board of Forestry hearing, it became obvious to Supervisor Dillon and her entourage of Napa County Planning staff members and Jones & Stokes consultant that the Board of Forestry was siding with NVLSA and was about to vote to reject Napa County’s request for special local rules. Sensing imminent defeat, Supervisor Dillon urgently requested that the Board of Forestry not vote just then, and that it give Napa County another chance to address the “problems” with its rules request. After about twenty minutes of debate among Board of Forestry members about whether or not to grant this request, the request was granted with the admonition that Napa County would be given ONLY one more opportunity to amend its rules package. It also became apparent during this debate that the statutory limit for review and disposition of this rules request might have already expired, depending on how the time limit provisions were interpreted, and that under even the most liberal interpretation, it would expire very soon.
We all left Sacramento on April 7, 2004 assuming that we would have to return yet a fourth time to oppose the Napa County request, but as of this writing (Dec. 30, 2004) the County has not revised its request, the statutory time limit has expired, and Supervisor Dillon, in a recent unofficial conversation, indicated that the special local rules request is dead. The history of this regulatory adventurism and NVLSA’s successful involvement is preserved on this site as a record of effective intervention by concerned citizens and as a possible guide for others involved in similar situations.
George Bachich, president
NVLSA