Protect Napa Valley wines, water and communities

Many Napa County residents cherish our scenic hillsides. Many more enjoy drinking our local Napa wines. All should be alarmed by a current trend that is dramatically changing Napa Valley’s character, water security and livability.

The interests of corporate wineries and hospitality businesses – like mega hotels and event centers for weddings and concerts – are taking priority over those of Napa residents. This once-quaint weekend wonder is losing its sense of place, which has appealed to visitors from within and beyond the Bay Area for decades.

Protecting the Napa Valley’s water supply and scenic beauty is critical to sustaining its local economy and way of life. Endless expansion of wineries and hillside deforestation is not sustainable. Nor are the rising health impacts from agricultural chemicals in the Valley. Napa County has one of the highest cancer rates in all of California.

Local decisionmakers could put an end to this unfettered development, but Napa County has a democracy problem. Deep-pocketed wine industry players wield too much influence over elected bodies. Winery event spaces are built first and granted retroactive permits later, even when construction is inconsistent with existing zoning. Bad actors ask for forgiveness rather than permission, which flies in the face of California law.

Fortunately, residents are using the electoral process to create change. Measure C, an initiative on the June ballot, would protect the woodlands that are the main source of Napa Valley’s water supply. The Yes on C campaign is in full swing, fueled by small donations and citizen volunteers. In contrast, the opposition is being fueled mainly by the corporate wine industry, which may spend more than $1 million to spread misinformation and sow confusion about this ballot measure.

The Agricultural Preserve, established 50 years ago, protects agricultural lands from development. The watershed feeding these lands depends on oak woodlands to capture and filter rainwater, replenishing groundwater and streams so that everyone – wineries, residents and tourists – have access to clean, plentiful water. Grapes need a reliable supply of clean water just as surely as people do. Strip the hillsides of trees and you threaten that water supply.

Area residents are also fighting the owners of two proposed vineyards in court that hope to clear-cut woodlands to plant grapes. If built, the vineyards in question would increase flood risk and traffic congestion, and impact local water sources. Both proposed wineries are owned by corporate conglomerates from outside the area.

Wine lovers have a romantic vision of our region as the perfect escape from city life and a source of premium wines. But residents, visitors and distant wine drinkers alike must act if we want to preserve the Napa Valley as a healthy place to live and a beautiful place to visit.

I grew up in the Napa Valley wine business, and I know that many vintners and growers remain committed to sustainability. But their numbers are dwindling in this era of corporate consolidation.

There are actions people can take. Vote Yes on C, become active in local civic activities, and learn about the wineries you visit and the wines you buy. Support small vintners and those working with the community and the environment. The future is the Napa Valley is in our hands. Let’s work together to secure a future that works in balance for all.

Geoff Ellsworth

City Council member

St. Helena

Advertisement was wrong about my position

Letter to the Editor - Napa Valley Register by Nancy Heine

"On Sunday May 6, the No on Measure C committee published an ad listening Napa residents who joined them in opposition to the proposed Measure. My name, Nancy Heine, was listed in error. I have contacted the people who placed the ad and asked them to remove my name from their list of endorsers.

I am actually a strong supporter of Measure C, which protects Napa County’s watershed and oak woodlands from overdevelopment, particularly on our hillsides. Ensuring that our hillsides are not over developed protects our reservoirs, Lake Hennessey, Milliken Reservoir, and Bell Canyon Reservoir, from water degraded by toxins from fertilizers and pesticides."

Read Nancy's entire letter here:

My name was misused on advertisement.

A letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Harris Nussbaum.

"I was really upset when I saw my name in the four-page front flyer of Sunday's Napa Valley Register as a supporter of No on Measure C. That is so far from the truth as are so many other statements in that and the almost daily flyers we receive from them.

I support the wine and grape industries and appreciate all that so many individuals in those groups have done for this valley. It is unfortunate that a subgroup of those groups are willing to spend well over a million dollars and use so many untruths to defeat it. No on Measure C was not validated by our superior court. They had to withdraw five false items from the ballot and pay over a $50,000 in legal costs."

Are you confused?

A letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Iris Barrie.

"The only harm a “Yes” vote may do is to limit the financial gain of some grape growers who will not be allowed to extend their vineyards into the hillsides by cutting significant numbers of oak trees in the watershed. That’s it."

Read Iris' entire letter here:

Vote Yes on Measure C and preserve our oak woodlands

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Penny Pawl

"And why am I in favor of Measure C? I am on a well which I slowly see going down. The water table and our famous aquifer is being overused. I have been very careful of my water use, but that really doesn't matter if new vineyards and wineries are constantly moving to this county."

Read Penny's entire letter here:

I am afraid

Letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Joe Castro

Watersheds are reservoirs. They grab rainwater and hold it, releasing it slowly. As a recent report from the state’s water agency says, the most important part of the water system in California is the watershed. Protecting watersheds prevents the need for more downstream storage and for increased expenditures of protecting the quality of water.

The most important parts of the watersheds are the forests and woodlands. They serve a special function of holding soil and storing more in the aquifer than if they are developed into any other use, even replanting as a timber resource.

Let that soak in; cutting down a forest has lasting damage in the form of erosion and lowered water retention in the soil, even if you replant it as a forest.

We have an opportunity to protect the Napa watersheds on the ballot. It’s a very mild measure. It actually lets land owners continue cutting trees down at the same rate until about 2030 before it says “that’s enough.” Nothing drastic, and probably not aggressive enough in light of climate change projections.

The opponents are spraying messages designed to make you fearful of protecting the watershed. It appears as though they got a list of all the things that Napa County residents don’t want, and then said, “protecting the watershed will make all those bad things happen.”

More traffic? Give me a break.

Endanger the hillsides if they can’t cut the trees down? It defies logic. They want us to be afraid of the “unforeseen outcomes” – a message that indicates you should just be afraid, even if they can’t tell you why.

What are they trying to make you afraid of? Not cutting trees down. They want you to be afraid of not deforesting the watersheds. They want you to be afraid of trees.

When you see the million dollars worth of ads and signs, the bottom line is that they want you to be afraid of nature, of trees, of protecting the watershed. They want you to be afraid to think things through yourself.

What are they afraid of? Not being able to mow down forests to develop vineyards that they can sell at enormous profits. They are afraid that the electorate will be wise enough to see through the fear and doubt campaign and see them for what they really are.

What am I afraid of? Them. That’s why I’m voting 'yes' on Measure C.

Joe Castro

Napa

Time to vote yes on Measure C

A letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Geoff Nelson

Sometimes lost in the debate about the controversial Measure C are the advantages of natural woodlands in both carbon sequestration (aka greenhouse gas reduction) and water quality.

In a woodland ecosystem, the soil has been protected for millennia from the large inherent fluctuations of temperature and the forces of water. When it is raining hard, you can stand on the forest floor and barely feel rain drops hitting you. The forest canopy is a buffer to rainfall intensity, and it moderates surface temperatures.

The thousands of years of organic matter accumulation can be up 12 inches thick, covering the soil. In contrast, vineyard soil is always exposed to both the sun's intensity and the occasional rain deluge, although a carefully cultivated ground cover helps.

Exposure means both erosion and high soil temperatures, which accelerates lots of processes, including decomposition rates and volatization of chemicals.

In addition, the excellence of native woodlands in carbon sequestration has been well researched, e.g., Williams et al. Carbon Balance and Management 2011, 6:11. (cbmjournal.com), and J. Environ. Qual. 35:1396–1404 (2006).

Even though Napa has been a leader in sustainability, we all feel the negative effects of the explosive growth. As a wine grower for 30 years, I feel it’s time for Yes on C.

Geoff Nelson

Napa

It’s time to get a grip on Napa's future

 

California’s water challenges are only going to get worse. More drought, more major rain events with flooding, and more uncertainty.

What we really need are new approaches and reasoned action to create a sustainable water supply - especially when the state is recommending tunnels to divert water to Santa Clara. How do we make sure we have enough for us?

When it comes to water: sustainability = survival.

We must invest in our future now. We must invest in our watersheds.

The least expensive and most effective means of increasing water supply and water security is to retain and protect our watersheds. Watersheds that supply over 60 percent of our city’s water demand and replenish our groundwater basin.

Healthy oak woodlands are able to absorb and store more rain water, releasing it slowly over weeks rather than hours.

Did you know that one new treatment plant is expected to cost $20 million? Why spend millions to build treatment plants or improve/expand reservoirs when we can do better by protecting water at its source. Water for residents, water for businesses, and water for agriculture.

Your investment in our future = Your Yes vote on Measure C.

Eve Kahn, chair

Get a Grip on Growth

Big business is telling us what to do

A letter to the editor - Napa Valley Register by Lucretia Marcus

Please allow me to preface my "Yes on C" letter with the following: we moved to Calistoga for many reasons.

Prime among them is how clean the elements are: air that you can't "see" or "smell", clean water, "traffic jams" consisting of four cars at an all way stop sign. The friendliness of those who live here is an added plus.

We ran from everything being politically related. Well, here we are again.

I'm asking that you read the article recently in the Register that tries to give both sides of the argument.

Let's look at the sides:

1) One has five times the amount of money to convince us that they are right.

2) One is crying that Yes on C would "allow" hundreds of acres of oaks to be cut down. Oh, the horror. A reminder: those are the exact number of acres left in the General Plan that was passed years ago.

3) Regarding that General Plan: only 41 percent of the land allowed to be planted under that agreement has been used. Why are the "No on C" folks fighting for more?

4) Suspiciously, no mention of ground water pollution or the draining of our watershed. Hmmm, could it be because their PR firm, so successful in defeating the ban GMO campaign, felt that those issues shouldn't be discussed?

The reality? This is big business that is fighting for control. This is big business wanting more: more profits/more control. Big business likes to tell us, the little people, what is "good" for us and we should just let them do it.

Just remember, big business exists to make money. What happens when they're done with this beautiful valley?

I really don't want to think about that. Do you?

Lucretia Marcus

Calistoga

Who benefits from opposing Measure C?

Why is the wine industry opposing Measure C, willing to spend half a million dollars and counting to defeat it? Measure C simply enhances the protection of our oak woodlands and the quality and quantity of our water. So why object?

It seems to come down to a business, a big business decision. If Measure C passes, vineyard expansion will be more difficult in Napa County.

Now, who might want and be able to plant those vineyards? Not the young family of modest income nor the small locally-owned wineries. Not with land in the valley ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars per acre. Not with the cost of planting a vineyard ranging from thirty to fifty thousand dollars per acre.

So who would want to plant those vineyards in the woodland watershed? Those who could afford to do so––the deep pockets of the wine industry. To a considerable extent those deep pockets belong to consortia and corporations with shareholders who generally reside outside of Napa County, even outside of the United States. They don’t participate in our community, drink our water, admire our hillsides.

The bottom line is that national and international companies would likely be the ones paying to cover the Mayacamas and Vaca mountains with vineyards, reducing the health and beauty of our county.

Over the past 50 years the Napa Valley has flourished largely due to the protection provided by the Agricultural Preserve and the passage of Measures J and P. The attorneys who drafted Measures J and P also wrote Measure C, which is a natural extension of these prior initiatives.

The buffer zones around streams and creeks, required by Measure C, have been shown to be essential for protecting water quality and for maximizing groundwater recharge. The moratorium on cutting down the oak woodlands, required by Measure C, further protects the quality and quantity of our water supply by distributing rainfall and preventing hillside erosion and runoff of silt, fertilizers and pesticides into creeks, streams and the Napa River.

So who benefits by opposing Measure C? The big business that is already buying our wineries, vineyards and brands, now poised to buy our woodlands and water for vineyard expansion. Don’t let this happen.

Support a sustainable Napa Valley. Vote for Measure C.

Jennifer Baerwald

Pope Valley