11-13-02 Presentation to Planning Commission
Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, staff, fellow citizens:
I rise in strong opposition to this proposed ordinance.
It is my understanding based upon the meetings that I've attended and the material that I have read, that the genesis of this proposal was a claim that the Napa River was impaired as a result of excess sediment and unknown pollutants, and for good measure, the promotion of a NEW definition of "Taking" as it relates to the Coho salmon that seems to imply that those now working on the Napa flood control project are essentially fishing without a license.
Despite all of the slick PowerPoint presentations, endless bibliographies, and hours of mind numbing bureaucrat speak, the problem remains undefined.
What exactly is in the river? How much is there? Where's it coming from? How much is too much? How much silt is healthy and "natural"? How much of this is caused by the land owners - many of us in this room today - that you now have in your crosshairs?
How much is caused by the runoff from the cities of Napa - St Helena - or Calistoga?
How do you reconcile the fact that some organizations not only claim the river is unimpaired, but hold it up as a model of good management, while others claim that it is so bad as to require state or federal intervention?
Never mind that the problem is undefined at this moment. We were assured by the representative of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board that while they are still trying to figure out what the TMDL (total maximum daily load) is, it will take millions more dollars and a lot more time to actually nail it down.
The problem remains undefined, or at best, very fuzzy. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Yet, for some reason, this hasn't stopped. Whoever is calling the shots here is proposing an ordinance that has now expanded beyond a giant land grab to a mission to restore habitat for reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plant diversity.
I am reminded of a quote from PJ O'Rourke, "Everyone wants to save the world but nobody wants to help mom do the dishes"
If we just focus on the main issue of the TMDL, we have not been given any estimates, nor do I expect we will be given any estimates as to: How much less stuff will be in the river if this ordinance is passed? What would be the relative effects of a 5ft setback? 100ft? 600ft? How about total confiscation of all watershed land by the county? How clean would the river be then, compared to now? And most importantly, what would be the effect of a purely non-regulatory education and voluntary compliance campaign?
When I was a kid the standard method of disposing of used motor oil was to dump it down the storm drain. A few things have happened since then. There are now places you can drop off old motor oil without being charged , and people have been educated about the damage to fish and wildlife that can be caused. Things like the small reminders that are painted on curbs near storm drains, reminding us that it flows to the river or the bay, along with social pressure, seems to be doing the trick.
My point here is that if landowners are aware of the consequences of acts that would damage the rivers or tributaries, and are presented with reasonable alternatives, they will in most cases make the right decision. You simply don't meet that many people that are out to damage the environment deliberately.
Speaking for myself, I would feel much more secure with my own property by trusting the good judgment of my neighbors than I trust the motives of the county, or any government agency for that matter, in attempting to restrict the use of my own land.
The staff has been making a big deal about their desire to "balance" the economic realities with the restrictions on property rights. In Appendix A, Section j (iii) regarding the taking of private property, I quote, "staff does not believe that property values will decrease under this ordinance".
First of all, even a drooling idiot knows better than that. But what's really slick about this, is by simply stating that there is no economic downside, presto, no need to balance anything. How much more can they insult our intelligence? I'm sure that whoever dreamed that one up doesn't believe it either. They simply don't consider the decimation of our values as something to be concerned with. I would ask that this proposed ordinance be given an independent study on its financial effect to the property owners, related business activity, and the long term loss to the county in tax revenues because of reduced resale values. This is something that has been glossed over so far. I think everyone will be shocked at the actual dollar cost. Even if you find the unnecessary seizure of our rights is acceptable, you may think twice after seeing the price tag.
The last point I would like to make is regarding the question of Taking. There seems to be a lot of talk about what is and what is not a taking. I would argue that what is proposed is clearly a taking without just compensation. Of course the staff disagrees and has gone to some length to argue that this is not a taking because the taking is not complete. Let me quote from the section on exceptions.
Special Setback Exception
Provides the criteria for approving exceptions to the standard stream setbacks in the situation where application of said setbacks could lead to loss of ALL effective economic use of a parcel. Only the minimum setback reduction necessary to maintain SOME economic use of the parcel shall be granted under this exception.
My first reaction to this is that it reflects a twisted mindset that the object of this game is to push their agenda forward at our expense, being very careful to avoid actually going over the line based on their reading of court decisions. They feel that if they can beat us in court, what they have done becomes justified and moral. But what's really sad about this, this mindset, is that even though we all ultimately desire the same results, a clean river and healthy habitat, this ordinance will drive a wedge, and will certainly cause further polarization, between the landowners of Napa County and the environmental movement.
And it's sad that there are a certain number of us that already distrust the environmentalist movement, but this ordinance will dramatically increase those numbers. Those of us that own land in areas that are home to a wide variety of wildlife and plants are very familiar with the phrase "Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up." It is one of the dirty little secrets among environmentalists as well as landowners that this unintended consequence has become common practice. Not long ago most of the landowners I know enjoyed living among a diversity of animals and plant life. This is now becoming a huge liability. Who in their right mind would want to have a rare, threatened or endangered species discovered on their property in this political climate? And it's sad that the incentives to promote a healthy environment are being replaced with fear and bitterness.
If the landowners are forced to surrender the use of their land because of a salmon that may be threatened 10 or 20 miles downstream, you can be sure that animals from mountain lions to rare birds to endangered plants will be about as welcomed as rats, termites and poison oak.
I urge the commission to carefully consider the potential backlash and unintended consequences. Reject his ordinance. And call for the lifting of the urgency ordinance before all of this spins completely out of control.
Mike Rodrigues
back