Opinion: Distorted facts continue
To the community,
The ecological impact of the Upper Truckee Restoration Project is too critical to allow misleading statistics to sway public opinion. But distorted facts continue to headline State Parks’ campaign to promote Alternative 2 as the “only viable” choice.
As reported in the article “TRPA Gets Earful on River Project at Golf Course, State Park” (Oct. 30 Lake Tahoe News), much of the logic of Alternative 2 – which would expand the golf course into Washoe Meadows – stems from the assumption that Lake Tahoe Golf Course is “among the top five revenue makers of California State Parks.”
However, the Parks’ own “System Statistical Reports” (available on the Parks website) clearly disproves this claim by ranking the golf course (Lake Valley State Recreation Area) as 46th among the highest income-producing Park system properties. Moreover, the report shows that income from the golf course is only about half of 1 percent of the system’s $80 million annual field revenue.
A study of several reports reveals that the backers of Alternative 2 are using statistical sleight-of-hand to promote their view and that they do not want transparency and candor.
We all are united in the quest to restore the stretch of the Upper Truckee that was sacrificed years ago for the development of Lake Tahoe Golf Course.
Let’s not sacrifice another natural resource, Washoe Meadows State Park, by allowing a project which is being justified by data that won’t hold up to public scrutiny. Restore the River and save Washoe Meadows State Park by advocating alternative 3 or 5.
Lynne Paulson, Meyers
Not surprising to learn that a lot of the numbers, facts, and assertions presented as fact regarding this issue were simply emotional, false hyperbole.
But this is how hillbillies make decisions.
Stablize the banks and call it good….
I’m with Geeper. Just stabilize the banks and quit wasting $$$.
I attended two of the presentations by the State Park, and read all of the alternatives in detail there and on-line. In my opinion, alternative 2 is the only one that allows for continued revenue to the state park system in the current amounts. It also preserves a number of jobs for the locals (very important in the Tahoe economy), and improves the areas of the state park that are currently in disrepair due to the gravel pits. It also allows for greater access for the public along the river without negatively impacting the environment. In fact, it improves the environment all around. It IS the logical choice, and is way above all of the other options on every level.
The golf course is top ranked for concessionary income. One could also argue that Lynne is leaving that part out.
Just because you relocate the river to where it was when the golf course was built doesn’t mean it will stay there. The river picks it’s own path and has changed many times over millions of years. Let mother nature choose. Just stabilize and enjoy what we have. TRPA is just trying to justify their existence .
Transparency in government. An oxymoron. The state took that land from Mr. Amacker to preserve it, not to turn it into a revenue producing golf course. At least, that’s what they claimed. . .
Who cares how the golf course ranks outside of our community. Alternative 2 is the only choice other than nothing at all on this government project created out of thin air. Shore up the banks if need be and move on. City types have nothing better to do obviously but spend taxpayor money and create jobs for themselves.
Shore up the banks and move on… This is not a water quality project as only a small % of the loss of lake clarity comes from streambank erosion.. This project with its huge cost will have such minimal benefit. Focus on instream repairs, fertilizer management an move on. Rerouting this river would be a BAD MOVE! It flooded twice this year. Whats this garbage that the river never floods. Were the designers there two weeks ago (Oct 24) during the huge storm? Leave the river alignment alone…
Water always seeks its own level. The river will go where it wants to go. Leave it alone and concentrate on places like the Keys. People washing their cars, fertilizing their lawns and running their boats are doing much more harm to the lake than the riverbank erosion and the golf course.
Stabilizing the river in place is NOT a viable alternative. It would pass high-velocity water down to the next section of river. Long-term maintenance costs of stabilized banks are huge. However, a naturally functioning river requires no long-term maintenance.
Stopping bank erosion is NOT the highest priority on the Truckee. It’s letting the river flood it’s banks so that fine sediments from our roads and homes are deposited on the meadows.
Big rains around Oct. 24 brought the river only inches from it’s bank. That was a hundred year storm event that should have brought flooding all the way to the highway.
Karen, because the channel was dug deeper in the 1930s, the course this river currently seeks is to cut deeper, not side to side. The deeper the river cuts, the worse the problems get and it needs human help to be fixed. No one has even mentioned the lack of water going back into our aquifers which we need for drinking. We are running out of water because the river flows too fast over the meadows. Stabilization will make that worse.
Golf Course/shmolph course, the Upper Truckee from there to the mouth needs full restoration.
Thunker must be on the payroll
The river does flood.. You can force flood it if you want. Might as well since every trout in the river is being killed to try and bring back the dying cutthroat. The system has been altered and erosion from this source is still minimal compared to the disturbance caused by constructing a new channel. Check out all the recently constructed restoration projects. If that storm had occurred shortly after construction it would have negated all benefits to water quality as erosion would be severe. Since it is very little known benefit to the water quality of Lake Tahoe (<4% basinwide) then why do it. UTR Sunset construction is a bad mistake. It’s beautiful… Have the scientists observed the complex structure, overhanging vegetation. Fisheries, wildlife and diversity already present (UTR sunset)? The pearlshell mussel thriving… Flooding and diverse vegetation / flowers in the spring. Its already established and the system functions incredibly well. Digging a new channel will force the meadow to re-equilibrate over decades and vegetation will take many decades to recover, meanwhile you will still have eroding banks in your newly constructed channel, contrary to the goal. How does all this fit into the TMDL? This will create a bad public perception if it fails.. Has this been measured in the past? The benefit of these projects? What data exists to support these expensive projects? Please cite… The golf course is a different story; however there is little known benefit… Thunker…, those are your opinions… I don’t think we are running out of water, we have a trillion gallon supply in our backyard. Attempting to create a naturally functioning river in a man modified environment is futile. Getting this river to overtop its banks at a recurrence interval of theoretical proportions is not going to save Lake Tahoe. The river is managed in that reach and should continue to be as bank erosion could be mitigated providing the only real benefit to water quality needed to save the lake. I disagree that restoration all the way to the river mouth is needed and to the contrary think it has the opposite affect, detriment, in some cases. General contractors are heavily regulated on small construction projects moving minor amounts of dirt, while scientists go out and disrupt thousands of yards of soil in the name of restoration. That was not a 100 year storm. It was impressive, but on a snow pack could have exceeded 97. 97 was a 100 year runoff event cause of the rain on snow. Constructing channels is scary business and in this reach my opinion is it is not worth the expense on all ends.
These projects are not worth the risk. Who authorizes these? There are so many other areas we could be focusing our money for worthwhile environmental projects. Stop these projects immediately!