WPA
and the Vineyard Ordinance
|
||||||||||||
|
Last
updated 2/10/01. After
a long period of massaging by County
Counsel, the vineyard ordinance, as
implemented, fell short of the goals put
forth by the Watershed Protection Alliance
(WPA) coalition. Articles
below (listed in order of most recent
first) provide a history and implemenation
of the WPA initiative: Controversial
vineyard ordinance
approved ©
Feb. 2, 2000 Press Democrat Sonoma
County supervisors on Tuesday unanimously
approved the long-debated vineyard
ordinance as a "first step'' in addressing
environmental issues related to wine grape
production. But
environmentalists, unhappy with the
ordinance, said more laws are needed to
put the regulatory brakes on an industry
that is out of control in Sonoma
County. "If
this is a first step, let's make sure
there is a second step,'' said Mark Green,
executive director of Sonoma County
Conservation Action, the county's largest
environmental
organization. Supervisors
approved the Vineyard Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance following a two-hour
public hearing that drew more than 200
people. It was the fifth public hearing on
the vineyard law, which has been under
public discussion since 1998. "We
never envisioned that it would take until
the year 2000 to get this approved,'' said
Supervisor Mike Cale, who cast his vote of
support. Board
Chairman Mike Reilly also joined fellow
supervisors in approving the ordinance
even though he had qualms about the final
language, which was crafted by legal
counsel to keep vineyard planting from
coming under the jurisdiction of the
California Environmental Quality
Act. "I
look at this ordinance as a first step. In
terms of public policy it's far from
perfect, but it will help to keep sediment
from going into impaired waterways,''
Reilly said. Although
the vineyard ordinance was tentatively
approved in the fall, the county's legal
staff has been working on the final
language for six months. It will be
formally adopted Tuesday and go into
effect 30 days later. Meanwhile, an
emergency ordinance and moratorium is in
place that prohibits vineyard development
in Sonoma County. It
was standing room only at Tuesday's
hearing. More than three dozen people
spoke, either praising the ordinance as a
workable law that will prevent soil
erosion or blasting it as a "sellout'' to
the county's $1 billion wine
industry. "This
board has been bought by the wine
industry,'' said Rita DeSouza of the Ad
Hoc Committee for Clean Water, who
denounced the ordinance as a public
relations ploy for grape growers and
vintners. She said the ordinance does
nothing to protect water and wildlife from
toxic pesticides sprayed in
vineyards. Growers
and vintners, wearing green badges with a
grape cluster, packed the supervisors
chambers and pushed for the ordinance's
approval. They said it was time to move
ahead so they can make farming plans for
the future. "Two
years ago, the industry and
environmentalists began meeting and came
up with a workable ordinance. I ask you to
pass it so we can get on with our work,''
said Peter Haywood, president of the
Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers
Alliance. Haywood
said grape growers don't relish complying
with the "2-inch stack of regulations'' in
the ordinance, but they are keeping their
part of the agreement. Grape growers
joined in drafting the ordinance after
groups such as the Sierra Club raised
concerns about environmental problems as
vineyards rapidly expanded into the
county's woodlands and
forests. The
soaring demand for Sonoma County wines is
driving an unprecedented expansion in
vineyard acreage. There are now nearly
50,000 acres of vineyards in Sonoma
County, with about 2,000 acres added
annually in recent years. But
environmentalist and growers who worked on
the ordinance parted ways when supervisors
ordered changes to keep the ordinance from
coming under the California Environmental
Quality Act, the state's sweeping
environmental law. The major change was to
remove any discretionary authority by
county officials, which legal experts said
would trigger CEQA. If
new vineyards come under CEQA, it could
require environmental review of any new
vineyard planting project. Growers said
that would be troublesome, costly and
time-consuming. Supervisor
Paul Kelley, a staunch supporter of the
county's agriculture industry, said he
would never vote for an ordinance that
would force CEQA on farmers. "It
would be a horrendous precedent to make
agricultural operations contingent on CEQA
approval,'' Kelley said. According
to the plan approved Tuesday, erosion
plans for hillside vineyards will win
basic county acceptance if they are
prepared or approved by a civil engineer
or other professional on a list approved
by the county. Environmentalists
protested, saying such a move takes
oversight for erosion control plans out of
the public domain and puts it in the hands
of people hired by growers. Green
of Conservation Action said his
organization could not support that
portion of the ordinance. The Sierra Club
said it could not support the ordinance at
all because of its attempt to circumvent
CEQA. DeSouza
and other environmentalists said CEQA
should have oversight when vineyards are
proposed on Sonoma County
hillsides. DeSouza
said concerned citizens will seek further
regulations on wine grape growing by
taking their case to voters through a
ballot measure. Citizen
groups such as the Town Hall Coalition
have formed in Occidental and Sonoma to
address vineyard expansion and some grape
growing practices. "The
Town Hall Coalition believes that the
rights of Sonoma County residents should
be treated as equal to -- if not greater
than -- the rights of large corporate
landowners with respect to toxic
chemicals, aesthetics and quality of
life,'' said Kimberly Burr of the Town
Hall Coalition. (C)
2000 The Press Democrat --
County
vote on vineyard law
likely ©
Jan. 31, 2000 Press Democrat Environmentalists
and grape growers are divided over the
final version of Sonoma County's vineyard
ordinance, unraveling the mutual support
both sides hailed after joining in a
historic alliance to draft the landmark
law. Grape
growers say the Vineyard Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance is a good law
and should be approved when it comes
before supervisors Tuesday. They said it
will prohibit vineyards on the steepest
slopes, curb soil erosion on newly planted
hillsides and protect wooded lands along
waterways from grape growing
activities. Environmentalists
say recent revisions have weakened the
ordinance by putting regulatory oversight
for hillside vineyard development into the
hands of civil engineers or other
professionals paid by
growers. "What
it comes down to is an ordinance that is
good for the grower and his business, not
what's good for the environment,'' said
Mark Green, executive director of Sonoma
County Conservation Action, the county's
largest environmental
organization. The
original ordinance gave the county's
agricultural commissioner, an unbiased
third party, the power to approve or deny
erosion control plans on hillside
vineyards. Now erosion plans for hillside
vineyards will win basic county acceptance
if they are prepared or approved by
carefully-screened professionals hired to
do the work. The agricultural commissioner
would verify that the plan was properly
prepared. Nick
Frey, executive director of the Sonoma
County Grape Growers, said the ordinance
goes a long way toward forcing landowners
to do the right thing so that soil
sediment doesn't wash into waterways --
the ordinance's main goal. "We
want the ordinance to pass because we made
a commitment and we are going to uphold
that commitment,'' he said. "The revised
ordinance captures all the terms of the
original ordinance and exceeds it in many
ways.'' Frey
asked who is better qualified to certify
erosion control plans than licensed
engineers and other soil professionals
educated in preventing erosion on
hillsides. "You
hire an accountant to prepare your taxes,
don't you? It comes down to trusting
people and their professional integrity,''
he said. Another
-- and perhaps the final -- hearing on the
vineyard ordinance is at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday
in the county supervisors chambers. The
ordinance, first discussed more than two
years ago, is the first attempt at
regulating vineyard development in Sonoma
County. Supervisor
Mike Reilly, chairman of the board, said
he will push for a vote on the new
vineyard laws at Tuesday's hearing, ending
months of discussion and fine-tuning of
legal language. "The
board needs to bite the bullet Tuesday and
make a decision one way or the other on
this ordinance,'' Reilly said. He said the
vote may not be unanimous but the wine
industry and the public deserve closure on
this long-debated issue. Environmentalists
and growers agree that if the ordinance is
put to a vote, it will pass because a
majority of supervisors support it.
Although tentatively adopted Oct. 1 after
a series of public hearings, the ordinance
has been rewritten, revised and discussed
at public meetings in November and
December. "We've
massaged this thing about as much as we
can,'' Reilly said. Since
last fall a moratorium has been placed on
new vineyards until the supervisors
approve the ordinance's final wording. The
emergency ordinance expires Feb. 8.
Supervisors could renew the emergency
ordinance if the vineyard ordinance is not
adopted at Tuesday's
meeting. Community
activist Lynn Hamilton, founder of the
Town Hall Coalition, said if the ordinance
does pass it is only a "first step'' in
further regulating new vineyards and grape
growing practices in Sonoma County. The
Town Hall Coalition, specifically formed
to address vineyard expansion, is pushing
for the reduction of vineyard pesticides
and the protection of ground water,
wildlife habitat, watersheds and the
county's natural
landscape. "I
would like to see some cutting edge
vineyard laws that will put Sonoma County
on the map. We can lead the way,''
Hamilton said. Growers
and environmentalists who worked together
on the vineyard ordinance parted ways over
carefully-crafted language designed to
keep the ordinance from coming under the
jurisdiction of the California
Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. If new
vineyards come under CEQA, it could
require environmental review of any new
vineyard planting project. Growers said
that would be troublesome, costly and
time-consuming. "CEQA
jurisdiction would open the door to
frivolous challenges by neighbors.
Vineyard projects could be tied up in
court for a long time,'' Frey said. "Time
is money in this
atmosphere.'' Green
is critical of the county's extraordinary
attempts to go around CEQA, which he said
should be involved when huge vineyard
projects are proposed on woodlands and
forests with ecologically sensitive
wildlife habitats and
watersheds. "There's
been a strange sort of dance to go around
CEQA,'' Green said. He said the board of
Conservation Action is deciding whether it
will give provisional support to the
ordinance or oppose it. He said the
environmental community is united in
seeking stronger regulations on vineyard
development. "It's
pretty clear we have to work together for
real regulation of the industry. If we
have to do it at the ballot box, that's
what we will do,'' Green said. Reilly
said he's torn about whether to support
the vineyard ordinance. On one hand he
fears efforts to insulate the ordinance
from legal challenges has pushed it in a
direction that weakens its ability to
effectively regulate hillside vineyard
plantings. But,
he said, a weak ordinance may be better
than no ordinance at all. "Without
this ordinance we have nothing,'' Reilly
said. There
are nearly 50,000 acres of vineyards in
Sonoma County, with several thousand acres
added annually because of the soaring
demand for the county's wines. Green
said the rush to start vineyard projects
before the vineyard ordinance was
tentatively adopted Oct. 1 shows that the
industry is out of control. County
officials report 486 vineyard projects,
totaling 8,630 acres, were started before
Oct. 1 and now exempt from the vineyard
ordinance. Those vineyard projects are
spread throughout Sonoma County but the
highest concentration is in the West
County where apple orchards are being
converted to wine grapes. Agricultural
officials said it's human nature to avoid
the regulatory hoops and fees imposed by
the vineyard ordinance. Under
the ordinance, any landowner planning to
plant grapes -- even on flat ground --
would have to register with the county
agricultural commissioner and pay a fee.
Fees range from $150 to $2,500 depending
on the size of the vineyard and the slope
of the land. Changes
in the original ordinance were ordered by
county supervisors concerned that the
measure would force new vineyards to come
under CEQA. The
original language in the ordinance gave
the agricultural commissioner the power to
approve or deny erosion control plans
submitted to his office. That kind of
discretionary authority amounts to a
permit process, which makes vineyard
planting subject to environmental review,
according to the Sierra Club. The
Sierra Club last year filed a lawsuit in
Napa County Superior Court seeking to
force Napa County to require full-blown
environmental impact reports on
practically any hillside vineyard project.
The case is still pending. The
basis for the lawsuit was Napa's hillside
vineyard ordinance, adopted in 1991, and
the discretionary authority it gives to
Napa County's planning
department. That
ordinance was used as the model when
environmentalists and growers worked
together to develop an ordinance to
regulate hillside vineyards in Sonoma
County. After
the lawsuit in Napa, supervisors in Sonoma
County ordered county counsel to rewrite
the ordinance to avoid the kind of lawsuit
that could trigger CEQA oversight when new
vineyards are planted. (C)
2000 The Press Democrat --
©
January 15 , 2000 Press Democrat Nearly
500 vineyard development projects,
totaling almost 9,000 acres, will be
exempt from county regulations -- and fees
-- because property owners began land
preparation before a new ordinance went
into effect on Oct. 1, according to Sonoma
County agricultural officials. Land
preparation at some vineyard sites started
the day before the deadline so property
owners could beat the new law. Agricultural
commissioner John Westoby, who administers
the ordinance, found the numbers of
exempted vineyard acres "shocking'' and
checked and rechecked his figures before
making them public on Friday. He said he
knew there had been a frenzy of earth
moving before the ordinance was
tentatively adopted Oct. 1 but didn't
realize the scale of the exemptions until
he tallied acreage from applications he
received. The
exempted acreage, representing a 15
percent increase in land already planted
to grapes in Sonoma County, also caught
environmental leaders by surprise,
prompting renewed charges that the wine
industry is out of control. "We
knew there was a big rush to get in under
the ordinance but we didn't know the
acreage was that large. It's a shocking
figure,'' said David Bannister of the
Sonoma County Chapter of the Sierra
Club. Mark
Green, executive director of Sonoma County
Conservation Action, said such a dramatic
increase in vineyards will change the
county's landscape, triggering a citizen
revolt that could result in even tougher
regulations and tighter
controls. "This
clearly indicates the county is way behind
the curve in addressing this problem,''
said Green. "The unfortunate result is
that as those exempted projects get
planted it will escalate the public
outrage over the county's failure to move
in an adroit and proactive way on this
issue.'' Westoby
said applications for exemptions have been
filed by 486 landowners who started
developing land for vineyards before Oct.
1, the day the long-debated vineyard
ordinance went into effect. He said the
486 vineyard projects total 8,630 acres,
with 7,300 acres on land previously not
planted to wine grapes and 1,300 acres
classified as "replants.'' These are
existing vineyards that are being
replanted with young vines. The
vineyard planting projects are spread
throughout Sonoma County but the majority
of exempted projects are in the western
part of the county, where many Sebastopol
apple orchards are being converted to wine
grapes. Vineyard
manager Pete Opatz, president of the
Sonoma County Grape Growers Association,
compared growers to wild horses who don't
want to be corraled -- in this case by
county regulations. "I
think anyone who had a notion that they
would plant grapes three or four years
down the road started their vineyard
projects last fall so they could get
around the ordinance,'' said Opatz. He
wonders if there will be enough grapevines
available to plant that much acreage and
worries about the market for grapes when
9,000 acres of new vineyards come into
production. There are 50,000 acres of
grapes already planted in Sonoma
County. Westoby
said the county will have no control over
the exempted land but he said other
regulatory agencies such as North Coast
Water Quality Control and California
Department of Fish & Game will monitor
the plantings to make sure they comply
with state regulations. Opatz
agreed. He said landowners shouldn't think
that because they are exempt from the
county ordinance that they can avoid
prescribed management practices that
conserve soil and keep waterways
clean. "Water
Quality is out there looking for muddy
creeks and rivers near vineyard projects
as we speak. Folks who don't do a good job
planting their vineyards will not be able
to hide and will suffer the
consequences,'' said Opatz. One
Mendocino County vineyard owner was
recently fined $25,000 because soil from
an improperly planted hillside vineyard
washed into a public waterway. The soil
sediment is a detriment to the quality of
the water and to the creatures that live
in it. Some
landowners started ripping ground just
days before the Oct. 1 deadline so they
could circumvent the regulatory hoops and
fees of the proposed vineyard ordinance,
which is yet to be fully implemented by
county supervisors. Supervisors have
adopted an emergency ordinance and put a
moratorium on new vineyards on steeper
slopes until the vineyard ordinance's
final wording is developed. The emergency
ordinance expires Feb. 8. Supervisors
could renew the emergency ordinance if the
vineyard ordinance is not
adopted. The
proposed ordinance was intended to limit
new vineyard plantings on steep hillsides
and protect sensitive riparian areas by
limiting agricultural activities near
waterways. Under
the ordinance, any landowner planning to
plant grapes -- even on flat ground --
would have to register with the county
agricultural commissioner and pay a fee.
Fees range from $150 to $2,500 depending
on the size of the vineyard and the slope
of the land. The
ordinance's legal language is being
revised because county attorneys are
concerned that the measure could force new
vineyards to come under the jurisdiction
of the California Environmental Quality
Act or CEQA. The next hearing on the
vineyard ordinance is 2:15 p.m. Feb. 1 in
the county supervisors
chambers. Green
of Sonoma County Conservation Action said
county supervisors should be more
concerned about adopting an ordinance that
regulates vineyards than worrying about
triggering oversight by CEQA. Supervisor
Mike Reilly, chairman of the county Board
of Supervisors, was out of town and not
available for comment on Friday. The other
four supervisors were not in their offices
late Friday afternoon when called for
comment. Officials
knew there had been a mad rush to start
vineyard projects in August and September
to beat the ordinance but until now no one
knew how much acreage was
involved. Westoby
said many landowners mistakenly assumed
the new ordinance would prevent them from
establishing vineyards, and they moved
quickly to plant. For the past several
years, Sonoma County wine grapes have been
bringing record prices -- $2,000 to $3,000
a ton depending on the varietal -- and
landowners are eager to cash
in. "It's
human nature to avoid regulations,'' said
Westoby. He said so far there are no
indications that any of the exempted
vineyards are being established in ways
that would cause erosion or other
environmental damage. Westoby
said those seeking exemptions were asked
to submit documentation and photographs to
verify that the work was in progress. He
said his office will follow up with
inspections at some sites. --
The Board of Supervisors is currently delaying the implementation of the long-awaited Erosion Control Ordinance as they explore ways to ensure that the powers it grants to the regulatory body (Agricultural Commissioner) are ministerial and therefore the vineyard developments not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At a recent Board of Supervisors meeting the Watershed Protection Alliance (WPA), the coalition of environmental organizations that has been working on this issue for over two years, opposed the recommendations of County Counsel as substantially weakening the ordinance by taking away the authority of the Ag Commissioner to regulate, and placing that authority in the hands of consultants paid by vineyard developers. The Board of Supes will again consider the ordinance and its future on Tuesday February 1st, at 2:15 PM.
CONTACT: Mark Green at 571-8566 Today, members of the Watershed Protection Alliance, a coalition of citizens concerned with the growing environmental impacts of vineyard development in Sonoma county, called on the Board of Supervisors to implement the county's new vineyard ordinance, which Supervisors have repeatedly delayed. The WPA, which includes the county's largest environmental organizations and represents some 15,000 households countywide, negotiated with growers for over a year to develop the ordinance, which establishes erosion control requirements, public notice of planned vineyard development, and setbacks from streams and creeks. Supervisors approved the ordinance as recommended by the joint agreement of grower groups and the WPA last summer, but it has yet to put in effect. "It has been too long," said David Bannister of Sierra Club, co-chair of the WPA. "While discussion throughout the county has turned to the issues this ordinance did not address, the first step hasn't even gone into effect yet. Meanwhile, even as rains have begun, vineyard development continues. We are very concerned about the impacts on waterways and wildlife that this rush to develop new vineyards is causing." WPA's other co-chair, Mark Green of Sonoma County Conservation Action, noted that rumors are flying that the Supervisors intend to weaken the provisions of the ordinance, undermining the historic agreement on regulation of local agricultural practices represented by the ordinance. "If that is so," said Green, "it calls into question the credibility of the Supervisors' intent to do something real about this issue that has raised such public concern. We call on our counterparts in the wine industry to speak up for the ordinance to be implemented as it was approved in September." Green pointed out that one rumored explanation for the repeated delays in implementing the ordinance is that Supervisors fear that the ordinance may be considered a "discretionary process", which would require environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The county's legal staff has stated firmly that the ordinance would not require a CEQA review. "Even if there were a requirement for CEQA review," said Green, "projects that had no significant environmental impacts would receive a Negative Declaration, without cost to the landowner. Both the grower organizations and the Supervisors have stated repeatedly that they want to ensure that the environment is protected when vineyards are developed. So where's the problem? The county should implement this ordinance. The public wants it, and both growers and environmentalists have signed off on it. No backroom backsliding should be allowed." The Watershed Protection Alliance is a coalition of citizens and organizations from all over Sonoma County. The WPA includes representatives of Sierra Club, Madrone Audubon Society, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Friends of the Russian River, Healdsburg Alliance of Responsible Citizens, Graton Alliance to Stop Pollution, Friends of Twin Valley, Dry Creek Valley Association, and many concerned individuals. |
||||||||||||
|
Grape-planting limits near ©
April 11, 1999 Press Democrat Sonoma County is preparing to adopt a landmark ordinance that for the first time regulates grape planting, an increasing concern as more and more vineyards move into forests and oak-covered hillsides. The proposed ordinance, which goes to public hearing Tuesday (4/13), represents the growing public backlash as vineyards expand into erosion-prone hills to meet the soaring demand for Sonoma County wine. "A lot of momentum has been building for protecting hillsides and keeping Sonoma County agriculture from becoming a monoculture,'' said rural activist Shepherd Bliss, a small-scale Sebastopol farmer and environmentalist. He believes the ordinance should be even stricter in limiting vineyards so Sonoma County can maintain its agricultural diversity. The ordinance, developed over the past 18 months, would prohibit vineyards on Sonoma County's steepest hillsides and require erosion-control plans on lesser slopes. It also requires that vineyards near streams, creeks and rivers provide a 50-foot setback to preserve natural zones, known as riparian corridors, for vegetation and wildlife. Landowners planning to plant grapes -- even on flat land -- would have to register with the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, part of an effort to flag vineyard projects that may need special engineering to prevent soil erosion. There will be fees for permits and fines for those who ignore the rules. "Everyone who plants grapes will have to go through some hoops now,'' said Bob Anderson, executive director of United Winegrowers for Sonoma County. The ordinance focuses on soil conservation. It is aimed at preventing some of the erosion problems that have occurred in recent years as inexperienced landowners plant grapes on steep hillsides without taking adequate precautions such as installing drainage systems and planting winter cover crops. In some cases, tons of soil slipped down hillsides and into streams and rivers, silting the spawning areas of federally protected coho salmon and steelhead. Grape growers and environmentalists negotiated for nine months on terms. The unique coalition that came up with the regulations continues to hang together in their support for the plan, hailed as a first step in maintaining Sonoma County's environmental integrity and the economic vitality of its $2 billion wine industry. A public hearing on the ordinance will be at 3:15 p.m. Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors chambers at the Sonoma County Administration Building. Mark Green of Sonoma County Conservation Action said environmentalists and grape growers who worked on the plan still support the concepts they developed. He said in rewriting the plan into an ordinance the county's attorneys "missed the mark'' on some key issues such as enforcement and the 50-foot setback along waterways. Green believes the language can be corrected to accurately reflect the provisions of the original plan developed by the negotiating team. Once that is done, he said, it would have the support of environmentalists and growers. While the ordinance may not win approval next Tuesday, it is expected to be adopted within weeks by county supervisors because it has such broad-based support from the environmental and farming communities. There also is some urgency to adopt the ordinance so it can be in place before a new round of vineyard planting begins. Vineyard planting that starts before the ordinance is adopted is exempt from the regulations. The premium wine industry has been going gangbusters in recent years with a boom in vineyard planting visible to the most casual observer. There are now nearly 45,000 acres of vineyards in Sonoma County, with 1,000 to 2,000 acres of new vineyards added annually in recent years. From Carneros to Cazadero growers and wineries are going higher and higher into the hills to grow the grapes that are fetching record prices. Supervisors have called the hillside vineyard ordinance a historic document because growers and environmentalists -- often at odds over land use and farming practices -- came together and agreed on the plan. "There was a lot of give and take to reach this plan,'' said Peter Haywood, a Sonoma Valley grape grower and vintner who was on the committee. He said the ordinance represents the first land-use regulation for vineyards. "That was a major hurdle to get over but a very constructive one in developing this ordinance,'' said Haywood. Green of Sonoma County Conservation Action said environmentalists didn't get all they wanted, but believes the ordinance is a fair one. He said it's a major step for environmental protection and is being supported by most of the environmental community. But some environmentalists say the ordinance will do little to protect natural habitats and scenic vistas on Sonoma County hillsides. "The grape growing industry is getting a lot of positive publicity while doing very little to protect hillsides,'' said Kimberly Burr, a Forestville attorney at the Northern California Environmental Defense Center. She said under the proposed ordinance forested hillsides and oak woodlands can still be bulldozed for vineyards as long as the hillsides are below a 50 percent slope and the vineyard owner has an approved erosion-control plan. Burr was on the committee that worked on the ordinance but resigned because she couldn't endorse the environmental concessions made to the wine industry. "I felt like we were giving away the store,'' said Burr. She said the proposed ordinance is weaker than the hillside vineyard ordinance in Napa County where there is public debate to strengthen it. Haywood said the wine industry also gave a lot. He said the 50-foot setback along natural waterways is a major concession. Growers estimate the cost of giving up that land along stream banks at $500,000 a mile. Haywood said the group concluded that it had to focus on erosion control and preservation of streambanks. "One of environmentalists' main objectives was habitat protection, but that issue needs to be dealt with by a more politically diverse group in a larger format,'' said Haywood. Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner John Westoby will be responsible for administering the hillside ordinance. He said growers will be charged fees to help offset the cost of the program, which he expects will require one to two full-time people. So far the fee schedule has not been determined. In Napa County a permit for a hillside vineyard is a flat $1,300, whether it's five acres or 50. Sonoma County is leaning toward a sliding fee scale based on the slope of the hillside and the complexity of the erosion-control plan. Westoby said once supervisors approve the ordinance he will move ahead to hire at least one person with expertise in soil-erosion control or engineering. This person would be responsible for studying erosion-control plans submitted by landowners and determining if they are adequate to prevent soil loss at the site. The agricultural commissioner said most big vineyard operators already implement strict erosion-control measures because soil is valuable and they don't want to lose it. The problem, he said, are the newcomers who think they are going to get rich growing grapes and begin tearing up a hillside to plant vineyards -- with no knowledge of the proper procedures. He said the idea is to pinpoint those landowners before they cause hillsides to slip into streams and rivers. (c) 1999 Press Democrat --
|
||||||||||||
|
Grape
Growers and Environmentalists Find Common
Ground Grape growers and environmentalists have agreed to new regulations for vineyard planting in Sonoma County, and have delivered a detailed recommendation for a new ordinance to the county Board of Supervisors. Spurred by the intensifiying pace of vineyard development in areas never before farmed, environmentalists met for the first time last January (1998) with grape growers wary of finding themselves (in some cases, unjustly) on the wrong side of a mounting environmental conflict. They had been meeting regularly ever since. "An enormous amount of time has been invested in this process," said Mark Green, representing the Watershed Protection Alliance (WPA), a coalition of environmental organizations. "We have worked very hard, and we've developed a fair ordinance -- and a major step for our environment." The proposed plan, created jointly by growers associations and WPA, would require that all future vineyards planned for the county undergo--prior to planting--registration and review with the Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner. "A Countywide ordinance is especially important for growers who are new to the industry and perhaps lack experience," said John Pina, representing the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association. "Soil management is the framework for a productive investment -- and for environmental protection." Groups represented in the WPA include Sonoma County Conservation Action, Friends of the Russian River, Friends of Twin Valley, Madrone Audubon Society, Milo Baker Chapter of the California Native Plants Society and Sierra Club, Sonoma Chapter. The growers organizations included Sonoma County Grape Growers Association, Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Alliance, United Winegrowers for Sonoma County, and North Coast Grape Growers Association. The negotiations stalemated many times and threatened to collapse more than once. However, on September 17, an agreement was reached on provisions of an ordinance, marking the first time that the industry has agreed to be regulated. The participants reached the following consensus:
"We have come a long way... we will watch and see how the ordinance works," said Green. "And we will continue to work and encourage dialogue on the issues which we could not resolve, such as ridgeline protection and the preservation of natural habitat." According to Peter Haywood, representing Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Alliance, discussions regarding habitat preservation are appropriate for a much larger group. "Growers, farmers, developers, planners, politicians and environmental organizations..we all need to be a part of those discussions," said Haywood. "We all need to play a role to effectively protect the environment." It is anticipated that an ordinance will be in place before the next planting season. Between now and then, discussions will continue among members of the groups to refine their recommendations. (Thanks to Bob Anderson, Dave Bannister, Mark Green, Diane Hichwa, Joan Vilms and Vince Yoder for contributing to this synthesis.) |
||||||||||||