Jan 21, 2003
Bill Dodd, via e-mail
Bill:
So far, our outreach to the Ag coalition has apparently not been well received. In fact, their first response was to un-invite me to their Town Hall Meeting. Fortunately, Jeff Jaeger re-invited me as his guest, so I attended. I know you received my report of the meeting, which included some interesting quotes, particularly from Dennis Groth, that support NVLSA's contention that this ordinance has always been politically driven, not scientifically driven, and that all the so-called science is just a desperate effort to rationalize what is essentially the manifestation of the desires of a misguided special interest group.
Mark Luce's observation (that vineyard setbacks are typically bypassed by class 4 streams) pretty much deflated Jones & Stokes's contention that setbacks are required for filtering runoff. Ed Schulz's presentation (that class 4 streams are the true entry points) obviously invalidates Jones & Stokes's contention that class three streams are the primary entry points for sediment and pollutants into the system. Several speakers have testified that the major limiting factor on fish populations in their streams is the lack of water, which is not even addressed by the Stream Setback Ordinance. The Phase 1 TMDL's own conclusions contradict Mike Napolitano's contention that there is excessive sedimentation in the river. The Sonoma State study and Mike Napolitano's own comments about the incredible bio-diversity in the Napa River pretty much discount the RWQCB's contention that our river is impaired. Carol Meredith's December 9 letter to the Board (pointing out that the TMDL study specifically states that the cause and effect relationships between human use and the fish in the river have not yet been established) raises the obvious question of whether regulating human behavior will even benefit those fish. Even Watershed Task Force members admit publicly that they were swept up in a political process to produce a report without any real data to base it on. And Oversight Committee members say that due to political pressures to resist the Malan initiative, they forged ahead without waiting for "the science".
This ordinance was assembled in the dark to serve political motives, with the hope that it could somehow be scientifically justified later. Since the scientific justification so far offered has been effectively refuted, the ordinance should not be passed.
Instead of mandating setbacks that are largely by-passed by class 4 streams, we should be investigating and disseminating truthful information and useful techniques for artificially filtering and settling sediment from those class 4 streams. Responsible vineyard developers and others on the hillsides are already doing this under the 1991 Hillside Ordinance, and these techniques need to be publicized and popularized among residential, municipal, and other users in both rural and urban settings.
Instead of new restrictions, we should be adopting a more flexible, more adaptable, more useful, and far more effective educational approach to maintaining the health of our watershed. While even a modified Stream Setback Ordinance could be obsolete in as little as 9 months when the Phase 2 TMDL study is completed, a flexible educational approach can serve us well over the long term by utilizing new data as it becomes available to continuously improve and encourage ever better and more effective stewardship techniques. If we really want to do something to benefit our watershed, we should develop the STEWARD idea.
Bill, I do appreciate your effort to bring people together by working out a compromise version of the Stream Setback Ordinance. But I think the Stream Setback Ordinance is unjustified, unenforceable, mean-spirited, and counter-productive, and we should dump it. - George Bachich
back