Subscribe for 33¢ / day

After reading the 18 pages detailing the provisions of Measure C, I was left scratching my head as to what “watershed protections” exist in Measure C. After reading for myself, I’ve concluded there aren’t any legitimate protections.

Clean drinking water. The survival of our people. Draconian soundbites with no merit. Is Napa County’s drinking water undrinkable, or is it going to be if Measure C doesn’t pass? Of course not. Measure C is playing an emotion-driven game, lacking in science or substantive research but full of half-truths and misleading claims.

So what will Measure C do with regards to our watersheds? It will create pre-defined stream setback areas by classifying every stream as a Class I, II or III stream, and creating setbacks ranging from 25 to 125 feet. But absent those provisions in Measure C, can one plant right up to the creek bed? Absolutely not.

Today, Napa County has stringent setback requirements in place, though those setbacks are based on science and the potential for erosion. In those instances, minimum setbacks are typically 65 feet, though in hillsides, which Measure C claims to want to protect, those setbacks range from 105 to 150 feet.

With that in mind, is Measure C really protecting our watersheds, or muddying the waters and ultimately weakening watershed protections from a scientific approach to a pre-determined one? Measure C won’t improve our watersheds – a deeper dive reveals these facts. As it stands, supporters of Measure C can’t produce the evidence to defend their reasoning, so they push a hollow argument hoping people won’t take the time to see the truth for themselves: that Measure C’s “watershed protections” are non-existent.

Johnnie White

St. Helena

12
0
0
0
17