After rejection of Le Colline, what does the future hold for Napa County?
Barry Eberling 08.21.23
Some people view Napa County’s recent rejection of the proposed Le Colline vineyard in the Napa Valley watershed as a breath of fresh air. Others see it as an ill wind.
Your story lives in the Napa Valley. Get in-depth stories from the Napa region and beyond – including news, sports, features and politics.
Le Colline was the first controversial land use decision facing the new-look Board of Supervisors that took office at the beginning of the year. On Tuesday, the board, by a 3-2 margin, sided with environmentalists who objected to clearing forest and shrubland for a 20.6-acre vineyard.
Mike Hackett of Save Napa Valley has over the years often been disappointed with county land use decisions. This time, he liked the outcome and sees good things to come.
“I think a majority of the board finally understands we are in a climate crisis,” said Hackett. “We can no longer be removing forests in inappropriate locations for vineyards.”
The Napa County Farm Bureau also sees something new going on, but to its dismay. It described the situation as the triumph of emotional appeals over scientific evidence.
“This week's board decision is definitely precedent-setting and vigorously threatens the future of agriculture in Napa County,” said Ryan Klobas, CEO of the Farm Bureau.
The Napa County Board of Supervisor by a 3-2 tentative vote indicated it will uphold an appeal and deny the controversial Le Colline vineyard project.
One thing is apparent: Le Colline has become a cause célèbre.
Le Colline a long time coming
Dave and Kathleen DiCesaris proposed Le Colline nearly a decade ago. After hundreds of pages of environmental reports, county Planning, Building and Environmental Services approved a scaled-down version of the project this year.
Le Colline would be a 20.6-acre vineyard on a 90-acre property in the mountains northeast of St. Helena, with a total disturbed area of about 28 acres. Although some forest lands would be removed, environmental reports concluded any potential ill effects could be mitigated.
But Le Colline proved to be complicated.
The land brushes against Conn Creek, which empties into the city of Napa’s Lake Hennessey reservoir. It abuts the Linda Falls nature preserve owned by the Land Trust of Napa County.
The Center for Biological Diversity appealed the approval to the Board of Supervisors. That set the stage for Tuesday’s marathon meeting, which lasted about four hours.
Le Colline and city of Napa drinking water
Many issues arose at the hearing. One mentioned several times was how Le Colline might affect the city of Napa's drinking water.
The city owns Lake Hennessey reservoir, its main local water source, in the mountains east of Rutherford. The reservoir is about 5 miles from Le Colline. Linking them is Conn Creek.
A Le Colline vineyard would increase sedimentation and runoff into Conn Creek, claimed Center for Biological Diversity attorney Frances Tinney. More nutrient pollution from agriculture could eventually cause Lake Hennessey to reach a tipping point.
A possible result could be algae blooms that could cause serious health effects and be expensive to remove, Tinney wrote.
Napa Mayor Scott Sedgley and City Councilmembers Mary Luros and Liz Alessio wrote a letter to the county opposing Le Colline. They warned of a possibly “devastating” effect on the watershed’s ability to provide clean drinking water and support wildlife.
“When fertilizers, pesticides, and manure are washed off of fields, they can contaminate our watersheds and lead to algae blooms, fish kills, and other problems,” they wrote.
Attorney Thomas Adams on behalf of Le Colline responded to the issue during the meeting. Water quality protections for the proposed vineyard go “way beyond any scientific standard,” he said.
Erosion control work for Le Colline would reduce sediment runoff from the property by more than 60%. Setbacks from Conn Creek go beyond county and state standards, Adams said.
Both Adams and county Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza referred to a Napa County program with the city of Napa dating back to 2017. The county and city agreed to do water sampling in the watershed to make sure pesticides, fertilizers and other contaminants from rural vineyards and homes aren’t washing into city reservoirs.
That program is “for moments like this,” said Pedroza, a former Napa City Council member.
To date, the monitoring program has found no pollution problems, according to Brian Bordona, the county Planning, Building and Environmental Services director. The baseline allows for corrections if there are post-project detections, he added.
Nonetheless, a board majority had concerns. Supervisor Anne Cottrell said climate change can lead to large storms sending more water down watersheds and slopes.
“This project location just presents too many challenges and offers too much valuable headwaters, habitat and municipal water supply for me to be supportive,” she said.
Supervisor Joelle Gallagher said that, should erosion control programs fail, the consequences for Conn Creek and Lake Hennessey would be “catastrophic.”
A new day for county policies?
The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to show its intent to uphold the Center for Biological Diversity appeal and reject the proposed Le Colline vineyard. A final vote is to come Nov. 7, after county staff prepares the official list of reasons or findings.
Supervisors Cottrell, Gallagher and Belia Ramos voted to uphold the appeal. Supervisors Ryan Gregory and Pedroza dissented. Gallagher and Cottrell joined the board in January.
The new-look board will soon begin updating the county general plan. Whether it will change how the county balances agriculture and the environment — and if so, whether subtly or seismically — remains to be seen.
Klobas and the Farm Bureau are expressing concern in the wake of the Le Colline ruling. It is imperative that the board make decisions based on factual evidence and not emotional logic that can’t be substantiated, Klobas said in an email.
“The board's ill-informed decision has contributed to a pervasive problem in Napa County where fully compliant projects that have followed all the rules and spent a significant amount of money to fully ensure compliance are now politically weaponized to serve personal agendas,” he said.
The Farm Bureau is extremely concerned about the upcoming general plan update, according to Klobas.
“Given that some supervisors on this board now clearly view ag differently, it seriously calls into question if some supervisors believe agriculture is still the best and highest use of the land and if they see the unintended consequences of their policy position,” he said.
The Center for Biological Diversity has been on the losing end of several board decisions. But it won with its Le Colline appeal.
Le Colline had legal deficiencies in the environmental impact report specific to that project on that site, according to Tinney, the lawyer for the center. Those weaknesses are also emblematic of unwise development that has chipped away at woodland, chaparral and riparian habitat in rural, mountainous Napa County, she said.
“I think this decision shows that more of Napa's elected officials are taking environmental protection seriously,” said Tinney. “Our hope is that this shift continues and is reflected in the upcoming general plan update.”
With three supervisor seats on the ballot in 2024, such issues could move to the forefront. Klobas expects that to be the case.
“Most definitely,” Klobas said. “Agriculture is the most important driving force in Napa County, and the public has a right to know about elected officials and candidates who put agriculture in serious jeopardy and threaten the future of our communities and economy.”
Hackett didn’t express worry. Farm Bureau-backed supervisor candidates lost in 2022 and the same thing will happen again, and the Farm Bureau is making itself irrelevant instead of stronger, he said.
“There’s no question in my mind that we’re finally moving toward a balanced approach, where the environment is also considered along with vineyards and expansion and with regard to deforestation,” said Hackett.
One thing all parties agreed on — things seem a little different in the wake of the Le Colline ruling, for good or for bad.