The election code requires that an independent analysis of ballot initiatives be commissioned to better inform voters and the Board of Supervisors on the impact of the measure. There are law firms that do these kinds of analyses, and it is the duty of the county to select a competent and unbiased firm and provide sufficient time to complete the task. Instead, the County chose a firm that promotes its service to developers in Napa and had agency in keeping the initiative off the ballot in the previous year. The directions to the firm were biased or the Board of Supervisors is inclined to accept a biased, non-compliant with the Election Code section 9111 requirement, and inflammatory report as 'objective'.
It's not
Sierra Club has endorsed a ballot initiative to improve protections for Napa County’s watershed and oak woodlands. Voters will face the initiative in June, and, if passed, it will be a historic, precedent-setting measure that will set a limit on how many acres of oak woodlands can be permanently removed.
Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Carl Bunch
This is a legal perspective on the nonsensical claim by the no on C side that Napa Superior Court validated their argument. Baloney. They were forced to rewrite "objectively false and misleading statements" and were ordered to pay our legal costs. And they have the gall not only to claim they won, but they continue to repeat the same false and misleading claims in signs, mailers and in person when they speak. Shame!
Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Olav E. Lejnieks
Opponents of C have lost all credibility. Why are current and former public officials colluding in this scheme to confuse the voters?They are so clearly serving some other interest than the public good with this strategy of outlandish, nonsensical claims - including, still, those they were forced to remove from the voter information pamphlet. We have to ask, loud and clear, who or what is being served?
"Not having a real or logical agenda upon which to attack this water security measure, the opponents of Yes on C are brazenly and irresponsibly attempting to confuse our voters. They are working diligently to remove the environmental issue that is Measure C from a comprehensive, environmental, ecological, bi-partisan issue that affects every living entity in the Napa Valley to one of issues solely of the wine industry.
The anti-watershed lobby appears to be desperate in protecting its issues, which they avoid honestly stating, and instead are focusing on the fears of the population of the valley. Their public relations team is attempting to disrupt honest dialogue with issues that have no bearing in reality. This measure is about water sustainability and its far reaching and broad effects on our water supply."
Read the entire letter to the editor here:
The 2010 Napa County Voluntary Oak Woodland Management Plan describes the role of oak woodlands in protecting our water quality and quantity: "Oak woodland canopies capture 20-30% more rainfall than do grasslands, and their contribution to organic matter in the soil improves its water holding capacity... Compared to annual vegetation, oaks can extract water from he soil profile to a greater depth. Consequently, soils under oak woodland canopy are able to absorb and hold greater amounts of rainfall than equivalent soils with only annual grassland cover... Oaks and other vegetation also help reduce soil contamination by absorbing heavy metals, fertilizer nutrients, and pesticides from the soil and intercepting sediments containing these pollutants, thereby preventing these materials from reaching surface waters."
Read the entire document here:
This voluntary plan is great for the people who already want to protect oak woodlands and do the right thing. But it does nothing to protect us from the bad actors that County leaders are too afraid to take on. The bottom line is that since 2010 no onehas applied to use the plan.
The science behind wetland buffers is reviewed in Planner's Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments, Environmental Law Institute 2008:
Measure C's stream setbacks and stream definitions were first proposed in a 2004 ballot initiative signed by Congressman Mike Thompson and then-Supervisor Bill Dodd. The scientific report for those setbacks is contained in a memo prepared for the County Planning Department by Jones and Stokes:
Multi national corporation to remove Am Can Mural, its only public murals that depicts the wetlands of which Am Can is rightfully proud:
Impartial analysis of Measure C by the Napa County Council.
Prove them wrong. Don’t be distracted. Protect our water for the benefit of everyone, including those corporate operations. Take back control of our Napa Valley. Vote “yes” on Measure C in June.
It’s not the job of business to set limits. It’s the job of business to make money. That’s why wine industry organizations oppose C: their job is to make money. It’s the job of government to establish rules on how to do that.
And if our government won’t set limits, it becomes our job as residents and stewards of the land to do it.
Opponents of Measure C (the citizen initiative to protect our watershed and oak woodlands) ask, with seeming innocence, why this was drafted privately, rather than in a process open to everybody.
A bit of history helps.
Paid for by Yes on C, Watershed & Oak Woodland Protection Committee. Committee major funding from Andy Beckstoffer.
Copyright © 2018 Yes on C, Watershed & Oak Woodland Protection Committee