10/29/99

By JOHN STEPHENS

The Department of Fish and Game estimates that there are 400-800 Napa

steelhead remaining. The Federal government declared it an endangered (sic.

Threatened) species last year.

Lack of stream side shading that cools the water, muddy waters that fill its

gravel egg laying beds with silt, and pesticides and other chemicals in the

water have all contributed to the species'' decline.

Uncontrolled growth of and poor erosion control on hillside vineyard

developments has contributed to each of these.

The Sierra Club feels it has no choice but to file a lawsuit against the

County Board of Supervisors to control the stripping of the hillsides.

The Watershed Task Force, appointed by the Board to help resolve this

problem, consists of 10 who have a vested interest in continuing the existing

laissez faire approach to hillside controls and 5 who represent the interests

of the environment. With a two to one stacked deck, little of merit has been

agreed on thus far.

The Task Force is virtually deadlocked at this point because of those members

who are philosophically "private property rights" believers who are not

willing to concede that they also have "private property responsibilities".

There was an internal attempt in the Task Force to remove our representative.

If this effort had succeeded, the panel would have been skewed even more in

favor of the unregulated agricultural interests. Our environment cannot

afford such poor representation.

Ultimately, all residents of the Napa Valley will be the winners if this suit

prevails, for we all will enjoy the benefits of cleaner water, less

pesticides in our environment, and a more balanced ecosystem. If we can keep

our drinking water clean, our food uncontaminated, and our air pure, we,

along with the wildlife, will all be joint beneficiaries.

The handwriting is on the wall. This case ruling will likely become case law,

meaning that each of California's 52 counties with hillside protections will

have to follow the ruling. It has wide implications. We cannot-and should

not-drop our suit. We cannot let the foxes guard the hen house. There are 51

other reasons to continue.

I invite everyone to step outside and look up to the eastern hills just north

of the city of Napa. See that fresh, gigantic bald spot, that scar upon the

land? See where every living thing has been stripped off the land to make way

for a vineyard, where nothing but Blue Bellies (Western Fence Lizards) and

ants can live, where runoff this winter will cloud the river with

silt-despite the best county "mitigations?" That is our future.

If we stop our suit, that future will be inevitable. Even if we proceed, that

future, to some extent, is inevitable. All we are asking for is

accountability to the environment: we are asking for an Environmental Impact

Report; public hearings; remedial action to ameliorate deleterious runoff;

stream side buffers, and wildlife considerations. Again, we cannot stop that

future; our suit, if successful, will only modify it. Therein lies the

tragedy.

(Stephens is chairperson of the Sierra Club's Napa Valley Chapter and a Napa

resident).