Dear Editor:
Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance (NVLSA) was organized to bring common sense and balance to all land use restriction debates. We want to be certain that all viewpoints are represented, that the consequences, both good and bad, of any new ordinances are well understood, and that the best decision is made based on careful and rational analysis of all the evidence.
We entered the Stream Setback Ordinance (SSO) debate because the viewpoints of the effected landowners had not been represented, the negative consequences of the ordinance were being ignored, and there seemed to be a rush to pass it without any rational analysis of the evidence. There was great political pressure and momentum to get the ordinance passed without understanding its full impact, without notifying the impacted property owners of the effect it would have on their right to use and enjoy their property, and without addressing any of the costs or negative consequences of the ordinance. It is safe to say that if NVLSA had not entered the debate, the SSO would by now be part of Napa County law.
We began by alerting all affected property owners by mail that this ordinance would directly impact them, and that they should read and understand the ordinance and voice any objections they had at the public hearings held by the Napa County Planning Commission and the Napa County Board of Supervisors. The resulting tremendous outpouring of public opposition at these hearings has caused the Board of Supervisors to pause long enough for us to begin to understand the full impact of, and the real lack of justification for, this ordinance. However, there still seems to be pressure from certain groups to get it passed, and there is real danger that the Board of Supervisors will ignore the public opposition and pass some version of the ordinance.
The time we have gained has allowed us to learn that the so-called scientific justification for this ordinance is highly questionable. For instance, the whole setback idea is based on the claim that Class 3 streams are the primary entry points into the river system for sediment and pollutants, but it turns out that the actual entry points are class 4 (man made) streams, which are exempt from the ordinance. These class 4 streams directly by-pass the proposed setbacks and feed any sediment or pollutants they may carry directly into streams of all classes, making the proposed setbacks irrelevant to the control of sediment or pollutants.
The so-called need for the ordinance is based on the designation of the Napa River as "impaired". However, it turns out that this designation was not based on any scientific criteria, and was in fact a political decision. Virtually every river in California is designated as "impaired", and the criteria for lifting this designation are political rather than scientific. The truth is that several scientific studies have shown the Napa River system to be healthy. Sediment levels have been reduced by 75% to 85% since 1991, when our present hillside erosion control ordinance was passed. (The 1991 Hillside ordinance does regulate class 4 streams, and with apparently excellent results.) Fish populations are coming back, and the Napa River is widely acknowledged as being the most diverse river in California in terms of the number of fish species it supports.
The political pressure to pass the SSO comes to a certain extent from a few environmental extremists, but primarily from a very well connected and powerful alliance of agricultural interests that sees the SSO as part of its political strategy to avoid the impact of the Malan initiative that will appear on the March 2004 ballot. The rest of us are apparently just expendable pawns in the agricultural coalition's high stakes political chess game. Unfortunately, this coalition seems to have the ear of the majority of the Board of Supervisors, as most Supervisors still seem inclined to pass this ordinance in some form.
NVLSA is now working on a public information campaign to expose the true impact of the ordinance to more people, including city residents. It is possible that the Stream Setback Ordinance will be forced onto the March 2004 ballot, in which case City residents will need to be informed in order to vote intelligently. Since City voters comprise about 2/3 of the registered voters in the County, the fate of the rural landowners may eventually rest in the hands of those city voters, so it is important for NVLSA to ensure that those voters are properly informed.
But this is not the only reason for City residents to be concerned. If the Stream Setback Ordinance is enacted over the objections of rural dwellers, it will be only a matter of time before the same injustice is pressed onto City residents, as well. Residents of Santa Cruz are already fighting a similar ordinance within their City Limits.
The truth is that the health of our watershed is of concern to all of us. After all, the fish in the river neither know nor care whether they are in the city or the county. If any part of the river system is unhealthy, all the fish will be impacted. NVLSA stands squarely behind any rational measures to maintain and improve the health of our watershed. However, any program of this nature must identify specific, measurable problems, identify specific actions to remedy these problems, incorporate criteria and methods for measuring the success of these actions, and be flexible enough to concentrate on those actions that are proven effective and avoid those actions that are proven ineffective. In addition, it must maintain respectful consideration for individual citizens and their right to use and enjoy their property.
The SSO does none of these things. It is simply a restriction on the use and enjoyment of property in the hope that some good may come of it, with no specific definition of what this good might be, and with no method for determining if any good actually results. In a nutshell, it is a politically motivated regulation that will do more harm than good, because it will alienate those people best positioned to care for the watershed, the people who live and work there 365 days a year.
A much better approach would be to win the hearts and minds of the true stewards of the land, and to thereby recruit an army of conservation-minded people to work in concert to preserve and enhance the health of our watershed. This is the approach inherent in the STEWARD program which NVLSA has been advocating as a replacement for the proposed SSO.
All City and County voters should contact their Supervisors and register their disapproval of the Stream Setback Ordinance and their support for NVLSA and its STEWARD educational alternative. At the very least they should insist that prior to enacting the SSO, a map must be prepared of the streams and parcels that will be impacted, an analysis must be performed of the cost to the local economy, and a listing must be made of specific quantifiable environmental improvements expected from the ordinance, along with a methodology for measuring its success. Common sense dictates that we should not enact severe restrictions without first fully understanding and evaluating their true costs and benefits.
George Bachich, NVLSA Chairman
back