Jan. 27, 2003
To Bill Dodd and All Napa County Supervisors,
As you know, from my comments during the December public hearing regarding stream set-backs, I declined to support the grape and wine industry position supporting the proposed conservation regulations. I challenged the Board of Supervisors to take a different approach to the environmental and political challenges which face us. Today, I am even more adamant in my belief that this Board must take a new approach. Why is this ordinance being proposed? There is no conclusive evidence that this ordinance will enhance the quality of our water or beneficially impact the growth of steelhead populations in our streams. At a time when you are each commissioned with trying to streamline county business, do you believe that the passage of this ordinance will lead you toward that goal? I believe it will create more of a back-log for County staff to process. And now that you open up the permit process for so many new parcels, won't you be exposing both the County and many more landowners to more threats of lawsuits. I would hope that it is your intention to relieve the County and its residents from the quagmire that currently exists rather than deepen it. Currently, in order to process an erosion control plan, the County requires that the applicant agree to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against...(them). Some county residents believe that it amounts to extortion on the County's part: to require an applicant to fulfill various County mandated requirements, and yet the applicant is expected to hold the County harmless for fulfilling this demand in order to process a permit application. These issues need to be rectified by those of you with the authority to create good, sound policy. Do you believe that the passage of this ordinance will lead you in that direction? After reviewing the research that has been completed, and giving a lot of thought to the goals of all concerned parties, I have concluded that the approach presented by the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance is more practical, is more fair, uses less County resources, and builds more unity among the various environmental groups, farm groups, and all members of our community. It provides a win/win situation for all of us to join forces to have a real and sustained input toward creating sustainable practices in our valley. And most importantly, if future research bears out that there are more important issues to address, it is extremely easy to make those changes without the costly and time-consuming CEQA compliance and hearings, and involvement of your time and that of County staff. I ask you each to analyze and answer the questions which were asked to you by this most recent correspondence from the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance. As I mentioned at the hearing, Napa County has shared a history as a leading county in our state and our nation in responsible land use and stewardship. There are a number of environmental and farm organizations within Napa County which have ongoing programs which support sustainable environmental practices. I believe that each of you on our current Board of Supervisors has a unique opportunity to lead this county into the 21st century by choosing a new direction, one which respects the rights of each of our residents and builds the unity of all in a county which is bogged down by the unintended impacts of our leaders of the past. I urge you to take on this challenge, and to help create the unity that the residents of Napa County so desperately need.
Sincerely,
Doug Hill
back