February 20, 2004
Dear Editor,
Recent letters to the editors urging a yes vote on Measures O and/or P often refer to the Napa River 's impaired status as justification for passage of these unneeded laws. The Napa River is just one of 1,400 streams, rivers or water bodies in California which have been declared impaired as a result of section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act.
Any stream, river or water body which exists in America and is in some proximity to humans has been declared impaired. Those in California and close to home include Lake Berryessa , Cache Creek, the Russian, Sonoma , Garcia, and Gualala Rivers . North of us the Klamath, Trinity, Van Duzen, Mad, Scott and Ell Rivers are also impaired. Some of those declared impaired in the Sierra Nevada include the Kings, Mokelumme, Merced , Stanislaus, East and West Carson , American and Truckee Rivers , along with both Donner and Lake Tahoe . And to the West the Pacific Ocean is also labeled as impaired.
Visual observation, not scientific analysis, put the Napa River on the impaired list. Yet all recent scientific studies, including several funded by Napa's own Friends of the River and both State and Federal Governments, have discovered the River to be in much better health than imagined, with fish returning in ever greater numbers. Factually, the Napa River is cleaner and healthier today than at any time during the last 30 years.
Of course, we need to be vigilant about our River's condition, but taking land from others in the form of setbacks should be the very last thing that we do as a community to improve our River. Additionally, if we all agree that the continual improvement of the River is a community goal, then all of us should share the burden of that responsibility! It is unfair for us, the community, to take land from those few who purchased it without compensating them for their losses.
The burden of proof that Measures O and P are worthy of being passed into new law falls on the proponents. It is the job of the people who wrote and support these measures to fully explain to the public what these measures are, how they affect us and why they're needed. The authors of both measures have completely failed to provide us with this information. I urge anyone who doesn't fully understand Measures O and P to vote No. The authors of these measures can always take a second bite of the apple, but once voted into law ..!
With all this in mind, I urge you to vote No on Measure O and No on Measure P.
Stuart Smith