March 18, 2003
Doug Ernst, Editor
Dear Mr. Ernst:
We would like to correct several misunderstandings about Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance and the Stream Setback debate which appeared in the Register's "Our View" editorial on March 13.
First, the Editorial Board's impression that the Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance (NVLSA) "has entered the fray. to serve themselves at the expense of others" is not accurate. NVLSA has brought reason and balance to this discussion for the benefit of everyone, not just our members. We have encouraged fiscal responsibility, disclosure of land-use impacts, and a conservation policy with measurable goals and practical methods of attainment. We have consistently advocated a common sense approach that enlists the willing support of the people who live and work in the watershed, and who will actually do the work of restoration and enhancement. Our proposals are designed to benefit all of us by ensuring a healthy and sustainable relationship with our environment.
The Register's claim that NVLSA "demanded" a residential exemption from the Stream Setback Ordinance is simply not true. The residential exemption was Supervisor Dodd's good faith effort to ease the unfair impact of the ordinance on many residential users in the County. However, NVLSA would rather see an approach to watershed management that achieves an improved and protected Napa River watershed, yet is fair to all stakeholders, so that no one needs to be exempted.
Finally, the Register's characterization of NVLSA as "a small group of property rights radicals" is sadly misguided. Over 120 NVLSA members are well intended, clear thinking, responsible citizens participating in this dialogue in a way that can only result in better watershed management. Many NVLSA members have presented valid and well reasoned arguments for rejecting the Stream Setback Ordinance in favor of a more productive and less costly approach. We have proposed constructive alternatives that will work far more effectively, if given a chance. Some of our ideas have been recognized for their merit and endorsed by the Board of Supervisors, and much of what we propose are practices that have long been supported by Napa County Resource Conservation District. By referring to us as radicals, the Register Editorial Board merely distracts from the important work we must all do to ensure an effective conservation policy.
When Supervisor Mark Luce said "It is possible to be 100% technically right, but 100% politically wrong", he was referring to NVLSA members. His statement actually highlights the basic problem with the Stream Setback Ordinance. Most of the arguments in favor of the ordinance are about political strategy, rather than about what is good for the watershed. Many, many members of Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance have written letters and spoken out publicly in an effort to bring the focus of this debate back toward watershed issues.
For a better understanding of Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance and its contribution to the Stream Setback debate, we refer you to NVLSA's website at www.landstewards.org. We encourage all Napa County citizens to read the information posted there, and make their own informed decision.
Napa Valley Land Stewards Alliance
Denise & Steven Levine
Juanita Boutwell
Dennis Watson
Bill Jaeger
Mike Rodrigues
Warren Kubler
Fred Chopping
Brady Mitchell
Steve Lagier
Randy Hynote
Carole Meredith
Steve & Gerri Drew
George Bachich
Richard & Louise Stadelhofer
Ken & Vivian Manfree
Paul Tevlin
Stuart Funk
back