Dear Editor:
The Stream Setback Ordinance:
Exhibits a fundamental disrespect for individual citizens. It treats Napa County citizens like second class citizens that must be controlled by their "betters", it subjects good people to humiliating, time consuming, and expensive permit application procedures, and it deprives owners of the legitimate use and enjoyment of their property.
Does not help the fish. The real Limiting Factors on fish populations are reduced water flows and inaccessible habitat locked behind municipal dams. The Stream Setback Ordinance does not address either of these problems.
Is a perversion of the Watershed Task Force Report. Several members of the Watershed Task Force have said publicly that stream definitions in the ordinance were changed after the Task Force recommendations were published, thereby distorting the intent of those recommendations.
Is premature and based on incomplete information. The Phase 1 TMDL Report clearly states that further study is needed before conclusions can be drawn. Most important, it did not establish any connection between human activity and factors limiting fish populations. We should wait until the Phase 2 TMDL Report is done before considering any regulation of human activity that may not even be relevant.
Is an over-reaction to an outdated "impaired" designation which might not even apply if the river were evaluated today under reasonable criteria. Who declared it impaired, and when, and on what basis? And hasn't our 1991 Hillside Ordinance reduced sediment levels by 85% since then?
Is nearly pointless. Reduced to its essence, it seems to be about making new vineyard development more difficult. But by all estimates, the remaining acreage suitable for vineyards represents only a 10% increase over the vineyards we already have. Why bother restricting such a small potential increase?
Is risky. This controversial ordinance has stirred up so much animosity and created such deep division, that it could turn into a public relations disaster for the wine and grape industry, to the detriment of all of us.
Is just another tool environmental extremists can use against Napa County citizens. Just as the '91 Ordinance made hillside vineyards subject to CEQA, and therefore to extremist extortion, so will the Stream Setback Ordinance make even simple projects subject to those same risks.
Is counter-productive because it generates resentment, rather than generating the kind of enthusiasm for watershed improvements that would encourage a personal code of good stewardship.
Was once viewed as a defense against the Malan initiative, but is now useless against it, because it has so many necessary exemptions.
Is politically infeasible. The Stream Setback Ordinance has been shown to adversely affect too many people for no good reason. The proposal is alive today only because of our irrational reluctance to change course after investing so much time in developing it. But it is washed up, and the sooner we recognize that and embrace the reasonable and effective alternative proposed by the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance, the better off we will be.
Needs to be rejected. Incredibly, this ill-considered ordinance still may survive unless even more people speak out against it. Please come to the next public hearing in Chardonnay Hall on January 28 and say NO to the Stream Setback Ordinance.
George Bachich
back