NVR Logo
Environmental costs have real impact
Monday, February 02, 2009
Save and Share Share
Tuesday, the Napa County Board of Supervisors will look at the principles guiding them in this years budget preparation process, and one thing on the agenda giving me pause is the statement "Pursue new revenues to the fullest extent possible for all services.”

My view is that fees for any kind of permitting process here are too high already.
It is true the county is facing reduced revenue collections due to the economic slump, but increasing fees for people is going to slow the economy even more.

We have a small rental house that we were thinking of putting a new roof on, for appearances sake. The quote for the roof was $7,500, and the fees involved to the county would have totaled $2,300 just for the privilege of doing it. The contractor told me what the county would do for that $2,300 was send an inspector by to make sure the nails were in it. Takes about five minutes. When I saw that I just thought it was too much and didn’t do the roof.
How many other things don’t get done because of high fees?

One of the misconceptions people have about Proposition 13 is that it lowered taxes permanently, and that has just not happened. One of the ways government has made up the lost tax money is through development fees, a kind of property tax. A new house in Napa has about an average close to $45,000 in permit fees.
The biggest area of cost in regulations are due to environmental issues. The Metropolitian Transportation Commission says that one in three dollars spent on transportation improvements are due to environmental regulations.

Huge amounts of money are being spent on environmental issues in the Jamieson Canyon improvement, over the red legged frog for instance. At what point do you have to say that a few might get killed and the rest will just have to shove over a bit? The expanded width of this highway is not much, yet $46 million out of the $139 million cost would be enough to put in the two frontage roads along 29 in American Canyon, which would relieve the traffic congestion there.

We can’t do it because the red legged frog might live along the Jamieson Canyon corridor?

It really gets worse than this, because there are layers of unneeded bureaucracy that cost a fortune on top of silly rules that don’t do much. There is an ongoing project to improve the Napa River along a four-mile stretch known as the Rutherford Dust project. This was started by the landowners as a good Samaritan effort to improve the ecology of the river, and is supported by just about everyone from the John Birch Society to Earth First. Yet we are so bogged down in environmental bureaucracy and territoriality that one wonders if it will ever even get done.

It has been one thing after the next, but the main problem is there are so many different government agencies who want say so over what is done, County public works of course, but also Fish & Game, NOAA, Coastal Conservancy, Bay Area Water Quality Control District, FEMA, and a few more, I can’t even remember all of them.

A design gets done then one of the other groups steps in and doesn’t like something about it, so it has to be redone, but then someone else doesn’t like that, they disagree among themselves about what the regulations even say, and on and on it goes. We should have one governmental organization with the authority to make these decisions and the thing would have been done by now. Instead five years and about five million dollars later, nada.

People, good grief, we are talking about moving the rocks around on a riverbank here. This has gone from being a $3-4 million project that was supposed to be done by now to a $9 million project that has already spent $5 million and nothing has been done yet.

Last week I was told about a Calistoga bike trail that had a bridge consisting of the bottom of an old rail car laid over a gully. Federal and State inspectors came in and looked at it, found out it was 100 years old and said before you can approve a bike path over this you need to spend two years and a million dollars doing an historical study. I say, why do we even have Federal regulators in Napa running our bike paths? What a waste of money.

Human beings are going to have some impact on the environment no matter what we do, and we have reached the point of stupidity with these regulations and the attendant expenses. When I was up in Yosemite, the Rangers told me not to drink the stream water because bears will poop in it and put bacteria in the water. If those bears were human they would probably put nets up all along the riverways to keep them out, and fine them every time they relieved themselves. Where is the environmental outrage over that? Apparently that is a level of pollution that we can live with. Are people really so much different?

Well, I drank the water anyway and am here to tell about it. There has to be a balance somewhere between meeting human needs and fixing our California economy, and right now we are so way out of balance with overwrought environmental regulations that it is a major part of our budget problem. Gov. Schwarzenegger knows it, but the religious fervor surrounding any attempt to do rational decision-making over environmental costs and benefits stops him.

People get really hurt by this, you can save a square yard for micro invertebrates yet ruin an economy that causes tremendous hardship. It is always the people at the bottom who end up getting hurt the most. We will spend the $9 million on the Rutherford Dust project, what would that do for coming health and human services cuts in the County? Those are the real choices that we are about to find ourselves confronting.

Michael Haley is president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes a weekly blog at NapaValleyRegister.com on local, state and national issues. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net
39 comment(s)

freeport56 wrote on Feb 2, 2009 3:08 PM:

" Let's talk about the new mercury light bulbs. Sure it will save energy, but does not last as long as they say. Also has to be disposed of as a hazardous material. It means more plastic bags and MERCURY into landfills.

Can you say unintended consequences! "

kevin wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:28 PM:

" (Hint to NB, the inspectors DON'T WORK ON WEEKENDS...)

You're missing the whole point on the environmental issues.

While I am sure some people really do care about red legged frogs and tiger salamanders, the big cost impacts on projects come from people who USE these laws to STOP projects for their OWN reasons. (Think of the way ACRORN milks the mortgage companies.)

Now the State and the Counties are trying to feed off this milk cow by instituting more fees (like the new septic tank inspections) to solve alleged problems.

It's only going to get worse. Wait till you see what the Feds have in store with Phase II of the Stormwater Pollution Program. What little construction work is left during the recession will dry up and blow away... "

krusty wrote on Feb 2, 2009 7:43 PM:

" I agree that environmental regulations should be streamlined in order to make the approval process for projects quicker.

I don't agree with allowing development of our land in the name of the economy though.

I don't agree with your stance on the red legged frog either. The frog is a threatened species that has disappeared from 70% of its range due to development. If everyone thinks it's ok to kill a few red legged frogs in the name of the economy, we end up with no more frogs. And if it's ok to kill a few frogs, where do we stop? Would it become ok to kill a few bald eagles? How about a few barn owls? "

Raven wrote on Feb 3, 2009 9:15 AM:

" btw..the septic tank inspection regulation has been shelved for a year "

antipc wrote on Feb 3, 2009 10:50 AM:

" This is what we get for following idealism above all else.

It is cheap to file a lawsuit to against development of any type; however it is very expensive to defend against these injunctions. Landowners, developers, & taxpayers are bearing the brunt of the costs. Meanwhile non-profit groups such as the Sierra Club are staffed with lawyers drawing salaries whose only goal is to prevent growth.

In reality, this mentality has little to do with conservation & everything to do with preservation. No cost is too high because those costs are laid at the feet of others.

We need to change the rules for filing environmental lawsuits by shifting the burden of proof where it belongs. Special interests groups have lobbied for & received duplicitous agencies that through fines, fees, & stoppages strangle our ability to perform even in emergencies.

In view of our current economy, the prudent action would be to make cuts in environmental oversight rather than essential services, but I’m not holding my breath.The church of preservationism is void of common sense. "

krusty wrote on Feb 3, 2009 11:12 AM:

" antipc, our past president relaxed environmental regulations. How did that help the economy?

Our economy will be fine without allowing uncontrolled development. Funny how people like to use this as an excuse for our poor economy now, but it wasn't a problem a year ago.

And what if someone came in and said they wanted to build 100 hillside homes in Napa? Would it be ok then? After all, it's helping the economy. I have a feeling most of you would be outraged, and rightly so.

Once land is developed, it's gone. We can't replace a development with an old growth forest or important wetlands when we no longer have a use for that developed property. I would rather err on the side of caution than develop a land that has natural value. "

antipc wrote on Feb 3, 2009 12:41 PM:

" Krusty, I did not claim that our current economic woes are a result of environmentalism.

But thanks for proving my point about preservationism; using worst case examples to stop development while failing to acknowledge the possibility of responsible growth.

BTW, old growth forests are considered sterile when compared reforested areas after a fire or logging. "

Native74 wrote on Feb 3, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Right on NB!

I still think Rutherford Dust shouldn't even be a County project and seems darn wasteful to only help a select few land owners. As for the consultants that were paid thousands of $$$ for portions of the project? The County paid additional money to send their own staff to training and discovered the Consultant royally messed up on some 3D flood modelling! Let's hope the same didn't happen during the Flood District project...

Oh there's a lot of these sort of examples and I'm glad to hear you are aware and voicing them! There are still a load of FEMA projects from the 2006 Flood still waiting for construction, but are being held up by environmental permitting. The flood repairs could have been completed by now if the agencies had extended the free pass memorandum beyond 2 months after the initial flood...just infuriating and thousands more in tax money being paid to get tho projects cleared. No exaggeration. "

kevin wrote on Feb 3, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Krusty, barn owls are not endangered. I hope you have the privledge of living next to one of these smelly, filthy creatures someday.

Actually the bald eagle is not endangered any more either, though it may still be on the list for political purposes. "

krusty wrote on Feb 3, 2009 6:40 PM:

" kevin, I never said it was endangered, it's threatened. Just as the red legged frog is.

I would much rather live next to a barn owl than a large group of rodents. A nesting pair and their young can eat more than 1,000 rodents per year. "

antipc wrote on Feb 3, 2009 7:16 PM:

" krusty, put a dollar figure on lives lost in Jamison Canyon & then let us know how many if any frogs will perish: red legged or generic. "

krusty wrote on Feb 3, 2009 8:08 PM:

" So a four lane Jamison Canyon would mean no one ever got in an accident there, antipc? "

db76 wrote on Feb 3, 2009 8:11 PM:

" The whole reason we have such strict environmental laws in the first place is because industry, left to their own devices, would destroy the environment to make an extra dollar. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 3, 2009 11:46 PM:

" db76, Krusty, you are right we have to have environmental laws, but we have reached such a point of overkill that it is killing us, killing business.

I mention Jamieson Canyon because no one is even certain if there are red legged frogs there, but the amount of studying and mitigation because there might be is huge.

Kevin is correct, EIR's have essentially become a way for just about any environmental group to kill just about every project that comes along Since they can't kill them all, the ones that do go through have to do enormous amounts of extra unneeded studies and etc, to push through all the resistance.

They are almost a total waste, and I feel it is because environmentalism has become almost like a religion, it is constantly exaggerated and you cannot go too far to protect anything.

I don't need a million dollar year long study to tell me that there is going to be a lot of traffic at Napa Pipe if it gets built. I know that already and would be willing to tell the county that for only $100.

What I do need is to know what they are going to do about it. "

cab e-girl wrote on Feb 3, 2009 11:51 PM:

" This all reminds me of the folks in Davis, CA. They built "Toad Hollow" so that toads would not get squashed when crossing I-80. The city decided to build tunnels so the toads would have a nice place to cross. The toads revolted and would not go through the tunnels. The city bravely decided to act again and went in and had the tunnels electrically illuminated. The accumulated heat from the lamps actually killed many of the toads. Meaning well and doing the right thing are very different. But I'm sure the city "felt" better about having spent $14K for nice tunnels so the frogs could cross under I-80. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 4, 2009 12:02 AM:

" thanks Native 74. I believe that the Rutherford Dust project started out as self paid by the landowners themselves, then they ran into so much flack from various environmental regulations that it raised the cost so high they couldn't do it by themselves.

I don't think the county is any too happy that they have had to help pay for some of this.

It's a little more complicated than that but that is the basic gist of it.

But to me it is a prime example of dysfunctional environmental regulation and points out the ridiculous gridlock of our government around environmental issues.

A project that "save" the environment that can't be done because of environmental regulations. What? If that doesn't raise an alarm I don't know what will. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 4, 2009 12:06 AM:

" Putting things on a watch list is another thing that if environmentalism wasn't such a religion would be done away with. Any group can put any plant or animal on a watch list, and as soon as they do it becomes an issue for a landowner.

There was some plant that was very common in Napa, can't remember the name now, and some obscure so called environmental group put it on a watch list. It is all over the place here, and all of a sudden landowners were having to mitigate for it in planning.

Do you know how many plants and animals are on watch lists? There is no scientific basis for a lot this, yet it causes a lot of problems and cost. "

Native74 wrote on Feb 4, 2009 10:00 AM:

" NB - Another case of environmental hiccups. Almost the entire Napa airport was designated as Fairy Shrimp habitat around 2003.

The Public Notice to the County had been misplaced (as well at the FAA), but if you had seen it come across your desk you wouldn't have known exact locations unless you went to he USFWS's website and searched for all designated locations. The Consultant (Auburn area) and/or USFWS should be sued over this since it essentially means the Airport has to have USFWS consultation to do anything on the airport. I never knew shrimp lived on asphalt, did you? However, it's going to take an act by Congress to have it removed. Talk about a waste of tax payer money. Where is the accountability here?

As for red-legged frogs, when my Father mentioned they liked to hide in the holes of our old wooden fence posts I about taped his mouth shut. Stupidity out of good intentions has taken over in America and in order to stay safe you have to keep your mouth shut and smile (while petting the froggies). We're not even near a creek, but there's lots of vineyard ditches (shhh!). "

krusty wrote on Feb 4, 2009 2:13 PM:

" NB, I agree that some of these studies are pointless and a waste of money. Occasionaly they aren't even correct. The people conducting the study may be able to give us a good idea of the number of cars added by the Napa Pipe property, but the truth is even they don't know for sure. I think you can get just as accurate information from the public.

I worked at hotel here in Napa once that had some rooms with 2 double beds and others with king beds. When it was really busy, some of the guests that wanted a king bed ended up with 2 double beds because all of the rooms with king beds were booked. Of course we ended up with many unhappy customers. After a lengthy period of time and some studies, the hotel decided we did in fact need more king beds. If they had asked any employee that works at the front desk if we needed more king beds, the answer would have been a unanimous yes and the company could have saved itself some trouble. That's my own personal experience with studies getting in the way of common sense. "

Todd Adams wrote on Feb 4, 2009 6:17 PM:

" NB, you should get another quote. A friend of mine recently installed a commercial roof in Napa and the County fee was only $350. He told me that permit fees for residential homes in Napa County are around $250. You may find this of interest: Vallejo has the higheset permit fee in our area at $500.

FYI, the building department checks for dry rot before the builder installs the roof and checks the flashing after installation.

Even though you used a bad example I would agree that fees are being used as a new source of revenue, but mostly at the State level. The state doubled many of its fees, except vehicle registration, when Arnold came into office. The idea is that voters tend not to notice this form of backdoor taxation. My only problem is that I don't think that revenue generated from fees should be siphoned off to fund unrelated programs. Just doesn't seem right. "

Todd Adams wrote on Feb 4, 2009 6:18 PM:

" My favorite example, which I will give to you free of charge (ha ha), are the State's fees for Industrial NPDES permits. The fees are around $1,000 per year and there are about 100 facilities in Napa County, mostly wineries. There are thousands of these facilities in the Bay Area and the total revenue generated is upwards of $1 million per year. The SFBRWQCB has only two inspectors on staff to inspect all of these sites in the Bay Area. On average there are only 2 or 3 facilities inspected in Napa County each year. Where does all the extra money go?

In defense of the County, they inspect each of these facilities every three years for only $35 per year. In my experience the County barely recovers its costs through permit fees which makes them a great bargain compared to the State. "

antipc wrote on Feb 4, 2009 7:59 PM:

" krusty, "common sense" would dictate the accidents would be less severe & less frequent.

db76, you assume the government can manage my property better then I would.

LOL.....they only want the fees & taxes, I live with end results. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 4, 2009 9:40 PM:

" Michael, you are looking at matters a little too simplistically. Regarding the issue of drinking from a stream; people who spend a great deal of time hiking and enjoying the outdoors use wisdom and carry portable filtration units to drink water from streams. Forget about fecal bacteria. Ever heard of Giardia? In our neck of the woods, a little girl was infected with it from just playing in a stream.

All sorts of animals migrate to streams and defecate along the way. Rainwater captures and carries bacteria into streams. That's how bacteria and protozoa manage to arrive in streams. In spite of what you might think, animals do not squat over water to relieve themselves.

By the way, 2 million people are infected with Giardia each year in the U.S. You might consider reading up on the symptoms and being a little more careful in the future. Some parent might read your column and assume it's ok for their family to drink out of a stream while on vacation. I'm here to tell them, it's not a good idea. It's people like you who force us into more and more regulations. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 4, 2009 10:04 PM:

" Also, I do not believe that fees for a $7500. roof would have added up to $2500. There's something more to this story than meets the eye.

I recently applied for permits for a home improvement project which was close to $7500. It didn't come close to the price you quoted. I'm guessing that your roof project involved reframing, beefing up the structure below as well as engineering costs? Are you adding the engineering costs into those figures? Engineering costs are not County fees. Indeed, the county does require that the project be engineered but do you know why? Hello! If they approve your project and the roof falls down on the heads of twenty people attending a party at your home, the county is liable. Guess who pays? You guessed it. Taxpayers pick up the bill.

On the surface it looks so simplistic doesn't it. We complain about the fees that the county charges us to protect the interests of not only the homeowner, but of everyone who steps foot through that door. When the roof collapses because the homeowner engineered the project himself, we complain about how stupid the county was to have NOT enforced regulation. We complain when the county then gets sued for a million dollars or more and how taxpayers must pay for their negligence. Regulation probably saves us money on some level.

Also, remember that environmentalism puts the brakes on growth. If you're pro growth, it's understandable that you do not like it. Sure, environmentalists use frogs and other little creatures as a focus for your attention, but the ultimate goal of environmentalism is to slow growth. They know that too much growth will kill humans too, not just frogs crossing a road. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 4, 2009 10:26 PM:

" For most Napans, wilderness is something depicted in photos on a desk calendar. For most Napans, wild animals are characters in animated movies or television documentaries. For most Napans, environmental issues exist only in abstract terms. Nevertheless, there will be over 20,000 children in the world that'll die today because they lack proper nutrition or access to clean water. Pulmonary disease caused by air pollution kills thousands of Americans each year. The pro-development, anti-environment, anti-regulation crowd does its best to ignore, marginalize or dismiss scientific evidence of global climate change. Nevertheless, awareness of humanity's impact on the environment grows. In the future, I hope that wiser, more effective stewardship of our natural world is a consideration when national, state and local laws and policies are considered by elected and appointed leaders. "

Todd Adams wrote on Feb 4, 2009 11:06 PM:

" NB: Your characterization of the Rutherford project is highly inaccurate. There was no flak from environmental regulations that made it too expensive for the landowners to do it on their own. Altering the floodplain along 4 miles of the Napa River is expensive. The main regulatory hurdle the project faced was FEMA which has to do with protecting life and property, not fish and frogs. This is a first-of-its-kind project in Napa County and I'm sure that lessons were learned along the way, but it's ridiculus to say that environmental regulations are preventing the project from going forward.

And yes, we are really different from bears. We know that we shouldn't poop in the creek and you could actually be fined if you do so. Also, you are less likely to get sick from bear poop than human poop. Gross! "

native74 wrote on Feb 5, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Todd you never cease to amaze me. Hope school is going well! We need more teachers like you. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:01 PM:

" Todd, the permit itself was $250, but there were a variety of other fees that added the whole thing up to right about $2300. I double checked with my wife and she said yup, it was. I am not in construction so I don't know all the reasons why.

To both you and vocal, I don't want the county to inspect my roof. If I am too dumb to remove dry rot or put the nails in, then I should suffer the consequences. I am tired of all the money wasted baby sitting people. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:10 PM:

" "It's people like you who force us into more and more regulations. "--Vocal de local

LOL! Hey, I am not suggesting anyone who doesn't want to drink stream water drink it, nor I am advocating it as a rule.

You seem to have missed my whole point, but thanks for the laugh. Maybe we need regulations over accurately reading what people write. "

napablogger wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:19 PM:

" MJH we have cleaned up our environment enormously. That is part of the reason people live to be so much older now than ever.

Saying x number of people die from x environmental problem a year is a nonsense statistic. No one could ever control all the variables to measure something like that accurately. It is propaganda from someone trying to legitimize a political view.

Since people on average live so much longer, using that logic the environment has no problems and is far cleaner than it was 1000 years ago when the average age of death was below 40, right? "

napablogger wrote on Feb 6, 2009 11:28 PM:

" Todd, my characterization is exactly accurate of Rutherford Dust project. My point wasn't that regulations were a problem, although I think they are, my point was that there were too many regulators and they couldn't agree amongst themselves on a design.

This caused a lot of delays, redos, and added cost.

And that is putting it as nicely as I can because I don't want to add to the problems by naming names.

I believe that when the project started the landowners were prepared to pay for it and anticipated grants. What happened due to all the delays is that the county has had to end up paying for a lot of things they didn't plan to or want to. I sat through two supervisor meetings where this was gone over.

The Sups felt like they were being held hostage and had no choice but to pony up to FEMA for the new flood map, for example.

I found out the day after I posted this article that they are going to finally build it this summer. Or so that is the plan, unless another regulatory group decides they don't like something about it.

I think it is time for the taxpayers group to protest the cost and demand a delay. :) "

vocal-de-local wrote on Feb 7, 2009 11:51 PM:

" LOL NB! I think it is you who has missed the point!

People who are always trying to outwit nature, outwit government, outwit the natural boundaries we must live within in order to remain civilized are the reason we must invent "regulations". In a perfect world, they wouldn't exist. But we are imperfect.

People continue to drink out of streams even though we have technology available to filter any contaminants out. We are forced to create regulations to protect people from their own stupidity. That's the REAL reason for "Regulations". "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Feb 8, 2009 6:24 AM:

" I've read this thread and remind myself that the 'pro-development' folks are just doing what they always do and saying what they always say.

Their development will never be 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. Surely their project won't 'Take Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot'.

We should always regulate NEXT TIME but probably NEVER would be better.

If the red-legged frog slows down development and keeps Jameson Canyon from becoming a freeway, GREAT!

~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:06 AM:

" NB, you are absolutely right about correlating cause and effect.

As Rush Limbaugh likes to point out:

"Everyone who has died, has eaten carrots."

We must outlaw carrots! "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Feb 8, 2009 11:07 PM:

" Napablogger writes, "we have cleaned up our environment enormously."

Who's we? "

5th generation napan wrote on Feb 9, 2009 9:00 AM:

" Too bad we have freedom of choice. This unfortunatly means stupid decisions can be justified and given reasonable explanations thru lies and blarney, 50 percent of the time. Whatever happened to honesty and facts overrulling opinions. "

glenroy wrote on Feb 9, 2009 3:40 PM:

" Over the past couple years the Napa Sanitation fees has driven our commercial property ‘taxes’ up over $20,000.00, of which we have eat the bulk of the added costs….of course they don’t call property taxes but it’s on the property tax statement and it is a way around Prop 13.

Nothing like government inefficiency where the very concept of ‘customer’ might as well be Greek… "

Todd Adams wrote on Feb 12, 2009 11:56 PM:

" NB: I believe that you made a couple valid points in this commentary, but like the roof example, the Rutherford project is a poor example. In fact, there was no bickering from the environmental agencies or organizations on this project. You are correct that complying with FEMA was expensive, but this is not an example of "too many regulators who could not agree on a design". The Rutherford project is making major alterations to a 4 mile reach of the river. FEMA just wants to make sure that the project does not increase property damage from flooding.

Also, this is not a good example if you can't support your argument because you are afraid of naming names. Why not pick another example.

BTW, you're welcome for the great example on Industrial Permit fees. Can you find a better example? "

Think b4 you speak wrote on Feb 16, 2009 12:55 PM:

" NB the only positive change we have made to the environment in the last 1000 years that has contributed to a lower human mortality rate is the invention of indoor plumbing. Beyond that we continue to pollute far faster than we clean.

" MJH we have cleaned up our environment enormously. That is part of the reason people live to be so much older now than ever.

Saying x number of people die from x environmental problem a year is a nonsense statistic."

Unfortunate rehortic

NB - please stick to subjects in which you’re well versed otherwise you may immensely detract from your original subject and misleading knowledge base. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy