(via e-mail Feb. 13, 2003)
Dear Supervisor Rippey:
I read with great interest Ed Schulz's report of his meeting with you. Please be aware that all of us at NVLSA are eagerly awaiting the promised substantive written answers to Mr. Schulz's questions.
Although I was not present at your meeting, and therefore might be misunderstanding some of the points discussed, I was struck by some apparent incongruities. Perhaps you could clarify some of these issues for me.
Regarding the need for shady setbacks along class 3 streams, it seems to me foolishly optimistic to expect large woody debris to wash down small Class 3 streams and into the fish bearing areas. There is just not enough water flow to do it, let alone enough capacity through the culverts under county roads and private driveways. Any woody debris small enough to wash down these dry washes and gullies would be quickly flushed through the larger tributaries, on down the river, and into the bay. I see no fish habitat improvements attributable to shading dry washes and gullies in the upper reaches of the watershed, and therefore no justification for shade inducing setbacks along any class 3 streams, and even along most class 2 streams. Maybe you could explain a little more clearly why these setbacks are essential.
If the Watershed task force (and now the Board of Supervisors) are passing over the NRCS computational setbacks as inadequate for the larger bird and wildlife setbacks, then are we to conclude that the real agenda of the SSO is to establish a network of conservation easements, rather than to improve water quality? If so, then why doesn't the Board just say so, instead of trying to maintain the fiction that the SSO is needed to address the "impaired river" designation and to satisfy the Regional Water Quality Control Board? And if conservation easements are not the objective, then why don't we restrict our efforts to those measures that will actually impact water quality?
How does the Watershed Task Force expression of "sentiment for wildlife corridors" justify a conclusion that such sentiment is "a valid Community value statement?" My impression is that the WTF may not have been very balanced, and may not have actually represented a cross section of the community, despite some effort to make it so. Certainly, the individual rural property owners who would be most impacted by the SSO were not even invited to the table. Due to this serious shortcoming, it is hard for me to see how anything that came out of the WTF could be construed as a community value statement. However, even if it were, wouldn't we then have to ask what value was put on that sentiment, and what costs would be justified in order to achieve that value? Shouldn't these legitimate value judgment questions be applied in a public forum to any means proposed to achieve those wildlife corridors before we blindly enact coercive regulations to implement these goals?
I understand that staff has identified (+/-) 300 acres of building envelopes in the AW and AR zones in order to help justify a residential exemption. However, the existing square footage of housing footprints seems to be a vast understatement of even the "residential" area impacted by the SSO, and seems vulnerable to challenge as a basis for any such exemption. After all, the property rights that are being withdrawn by the SSO are the rights to use and enjoy the areas outside and around those 300 acres of existing floor space, not the area within those walls. Aren't you risking a legal challenge and consequent invalidation of the residential exemption? Do you really want to expose your constituents to this kind of risk by passing an ordinance with an exemption that may not endure?
NVLSA sincerely embraces its role as promoter of good stewardship, and believes that all parties can work together to achieve meaningful environmental progress without depriving property owners of important rights to use and enjoy their property. However, it is hard for us to envision allying ourselves with antagonistic groups and individuals who persist in trying to confiscate our property, or with politicians who neither listen nor respond to the needs and desires of our membership. Our members have spoken with outstanding unity and clarity regarding the SSO. We do not want restrictions enacted unless and until all the important, relevant, fundamental questions are fully answered, and a rational decision is made on that basis.
The fundamental questions are:
1. What will be the financial impact of this ordinance on the affected property owners and on the County government? So far, we have had no response to this question. Must we prepare our own estimate?
2. How many acres and which parcels will this ordinance impact? So far, we have heard estimates of 6,000 parcels in the original staff report, and a more recent estimate of 9,000 parcels at the Jan. 28 meeting, but no attempt to identify which parcels they are. Shouldn't we all understand the true impact of this ordinance before enacting it?
3. Which are the Class II streams, and which are Class III? The technical difference is virtually imperceptible, but the difference in setbacks is huge. Without a map or a list, we cannot know how we will be affected. Is it the goal of the County to hurriedly pass this ordinance before the affected citizens can find out how they will be impacted? What is the rush?
4. Why do we need this ordinance? What specific problems will it solve, and how will it solve them? How will we know if it is working? Without the answers to these questions, why should the Board pass the ordinance?
To help answer these questions, how would you respond to each of the following allegations?
1. The so-called scientific justification for the SSO is contrived, and will not stand up under scrutiny.
- The river is actually not impaired by any rational standard. The "impaired" designation is a political expedient.
- Class 3 streams are not the true entry points for sediment and pollutants. The "rational" basis for the SSO is thereby discredited.
- Man-made channels (unregulated class 4 streams) bypass nearly all setbacks, so setbacks have no impact on sediment levels or water quality.
- Recruiting large woody debris into streambeds will increase erosion and flooding, with consequent property damage.
2. The SSO will not measurably improve the river. In fact, it does not establish any criteria for measuring improvement.
3. The SSO will eventually be exposed as a political expediency to mollify a powerful agricultural special interest group and environmental extremists.
4. The eventual stream maps will ultimately expose the huge impact of the restrictions, generating a backlash fueled by outrage.
5. The true cost of the SSO will eventually be known, including over two billion dollars of lost property value, over 25 million dollars in lost annual tax revenue, and millions more in ordinance development costs, administrative costs, legal expenses, flood damage, and enforcement efforts. Shifting these burdens to property owners will not eliminate them as drains on the local economy.
NVLSA stands squarely behind any rational measures to maintain and improve the health of our watershed. However, shouldn't any program of this nature 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 allow concentration on those actions that are proven effective and deletion of those actions that are proven ineffective? Without the answers to all of the questions listed above, must we not conclude that the Stream Setback Ordinance does none of these things? Does it not appear to be 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, doesn't it appear to do more harm than good, by alienating those people best positioned to care for the watershed, the ones who live and work there 365 days a year?
Don't you think 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 proposed in writing to the Board as a replacement for the proposed Stream Setback Ordinance. I look forward to your serious answers to the serious questions posed above. And if satisfactory answers are not available, I urge you to drop your support for the SSO and embrace the STEWARD program instead.
Please understand that NVLSA members are sincerely interested in your answers to our questions. I will forward your response to all members, or you may simply use "reply all". We eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
George Bachich
back