Invest in watershed improvements, not taller dams.

Watershed conservation is one of the least expensive solutions to ensure greater water quantity, quality and security, cheaper than building new infrastructure and certainly more cost effective than the initially estimated $1.3 billion price tag to raise Shasta Dam. Unlike large dam infrastructure projects, which consistently have cost and time overruns, natural infrastructure projects have been accomplished under budget and on time. New York City, for example, used watershed conservation policies in the 1990s to clean city water more cheaply than by building a new water treatment plant.

Read entire article here:

Don't be mislead by mailers.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Yeoryios C. Apallas

"For several weeks now, the opposition to Measure C has spent a great deal of money spreading, what in my opinion is, materially misleading information about Measure C and its impacts on the watershed and the wine industry’s ability to plant vineyards into our precious agricultural watersheds.

Armed with a million-plus in wine and tourist industry dollars, the No On C folks have excoriated the provisions of Measure C and its proponents to the point of mass hysteria. This unrelenting attack on Measure C’s common sense-watershed protection has, in my opinion, brought out the darkest of forces in these industries that seek to continue their irresponsible and heretofore unchecked winery developments."

Read the entire letter here:

Brochure knocked my socks off

Letter to the Editor, Napa Valley Register, May 4, by Pamela Jackson

I received a slick brochure recently that knocked my socks off. Opponents of Measure C changed their ballot arguments in a Napa County Superior Court settlement due to objectively false statements, yet this brochure makes it sound as if they won the suit. They did not. They paid $54,000 for their misstatements. Furthermore, the Superior Court did not validate the effects of Measure C.

Here are the “No on C” ballot arguments which were removed per the lawsuit:

1. “Measure C will outlaw future farming in the Ag Watershed;” (Absolutely not true.)

2. “Restrictions from Measure C will prevent property owners from … adding to one’s home” (Actually Measure C exempts a 150 foot radius around houses, more than an acre and a half.)

3. “Please join … Napa County Supervisors and Mayors in Napa County, who all oppose Measure C.” (No, not all of them oppose Measure C.)

4. “Measure C will reverse these protections by allowing 795 acres of oak woodlands to be removed—" (In truth, the 795 acre exemption supports, not reverses, the current protection.)

The brochures that Measure C opponents are stuffing in our mailboxes are shady and misleading. Evidently, there is truth in advertising but not in politics. Profit-motive driven behavior that trumps truth seems to be a profound problem in our national soul lately and it is becoming a threat to our democracy.

But let’s hope we can at least address this in our own backyard. If government won’t limit the greed that leads to the continued slashing of our forests then the solution has to come from the people.

The flyer tells us how far some members in the industry will go. They will deceive -- and that doesn’t set well with me. We need to stand up against big money, stand up for clean and adequate water for our children. The Valley will continue to prosper but let us at least keep the oak trees on the hillsides that replenish our aquifer. Measure C is a visionary compromise of vineyard development and our community’s water needs.

I’ve got my socks back on now; please vote yes on C with me.

Pamela Jackson

Napa

Here’s the Science – Yes on C.

Clarity bought to the watershed debate by a veteran vintner and grower

"[Opponent of C] Mr. Smith sounds the drumbeat of "where's the science?" knowing full well that there is ample science. The Watershed Task Force compiled and summarized the science associated with protecting vs. deforesting watersheds. The Dunne report (2001) systematically detailed the cumulative and permanent impact of deforestation. Mr. Smith has been an active participant in the consideration of the science involved, and his claim that none exists is disingenuous. What science would he like to argue with?

The beneficial services of oak forests? The negative impact of deforestation? The benefits of tertiary and secondary streams? The detriment of Roundup to our waterways? (Higgins, 2018)

Would he like to argue that vineyards don't use water drawn from the water table? He begins to sound like the climate change deniers who look straight at the science and declare it to be opinion. Can he show any science that shows that deforestation is good? A single case? No, I didn't think so."

"Mistruths" are part of well-worn strategy.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Joyce Black Sears

"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."

Read the entire letter here:

Don't believe the propaganda.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by  Vincent Gewalt

"Measure C is about making sure our woodlands will not be deforested, our streams, our ground water will not be polluted by chemicals, and our habitat will be protected and corporations will be held accountable for any violations.

Please take the time to read both sides and not be misled by out-of-state propaganda in fooling us in believing they want to protect Napa. Vote yes on C."

Please read Measure C for yourself.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Lori Stelling

"We must have the courage to let go of fear-based thinking, to say no to fear-based mailers, and to see clearly what many around the world are now recognizing: we can no longer continue to destroy our forest ecosystems. Our current way of living on the planet is unsustainable...

Before you vote, please take a moment to read Measure C for yourself. Our children do not have the opportunity to vote on this measure. We must vote for them. We must take responsibility for the future of our water, today."

Read the entire letter here:

Question for Measure C opponents.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Jeremy Wilder Fitch

"...no sensible Napa vineyard owner would propose to remove our oak woodland, key to the summer’s water supply.

Why then would they oppose Measure C, which restricts oak woodland cutting and riparian corridor conversion, and therefore protects the water supply on which they depend?

Read the entire letter here:

Just the usual baloney

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Lenore Hirsch

False and misleading claims by No on C: "the usual baloney spewed by hired hands to scare voters and make them imagine that every possible negative outcome will happen."

Read the entire letter here:

Don't fall for these arguments.

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by David Heitzman

"The anti-watershed group has no argument, so they are resorting to clever and repetitive deception, hoping that voters will not think it through. I expect that voters will see through this and understand that the interests of the rich and mega-corporations are not aligned with a sustainable Napa.

What is clear to me is that the Napa Valley Vintners, the Winegrowers, and the Farm Bureau do not have a sustainable Napa as their focus. They are betraying the trust of the citizens of the valley"

Read entire letter here: