Bill to remove Nevada from TRPA moves to full Senate
By Anne Knowles
CARSON CITY — With two weeks left in the legislative session, a bill that would remove Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is finally making its way through the Legislature.
Senate Bill 271 is expected to move to the Senate soon for a full vote after several amendments to the legislation were approved by the Senate Government Affairs committee this morning. If passed by the Senate, the bill will move to the Assembly where it will be heard by the corresponding committee there.
Nevada is making progress in pulling out of the TRPA. Photo/LTN file
The bill withdraws Nevada from the TRPA unless changes to the Compact outlined in the legislation are approved by Nevada and California lawmakers, and ratified by Congress. The withdrawal would take effect Oct. 1, 2013, unless extended by proclamation of the governor to Oct. 1, 2015.
The bill now calls for a report on the impact of exiting from the TRPA to be conducted by the Legislative Committee for the Review and Oversight of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Marlette Lake Water System. That report would be available to legislators next session, before any final decisions were made to leave the agency.
“There are plenty of places to stop (the process) if it proves to be problematic,” said state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Gardnerville, a sponsor of the bill and a member of the Senate Government Affairs committee, after the meeting.
Settelmeyer said he would not predict the bill’s chances of passage. Similar legislation has failed in the past.
The amendments proposed by the Senate Finance committee and approved by Senate Government Affairs include the oversight report looking into possible outcomes if Nevada leaves the current two-state agency. Other amendments that would alter the TRPA and need to be endorsed by California and Congress include removing the supermajority requirement for members voting on matters before the TRPA; a provision providing that anyone who challenges the regional plan has a burden of proof that it violate the Compact, and a requirement that the TRPA consider changing economic conditions so the plan does not adversely affect Lake Tahoe’s economy.
“If the economy improves, we can increase the environmental restrictions,” Settelmeyer said. “It can work to the environment’s benefit.”
If Nevada does leave the TRPA, an amendment to the bill provides that all projects previously approved by the TRPA would continue, or be grandfathered in.
The bill outlines the creation of the Nevada Regional Planning Agency should the state drop out of the existing agency now comprised of members from California and Nevada.
So if the TRPA no longer exist in Nevada, does that mean that the California side will stay clean and blue and the Nevada side will become polluted. How is that possible? I know there are many who are not in favor of the TRPA, but if not for them, this place would be in ruins.
Excuse me, are you really stating that with the TRPA’s moratorium and suppression of viable projects that would upgrade our sustainability and decrease the TMDL, we are better off.
Are you new in town?
I still think we need a united efforts in our protection of the Lake Tahoe basin.
I don’t think it would be in the best interest of everyone on the California side, and everyone that loves our pristine conditions to have only one side with the TRPA.
Imagine the east shore with mega resorts, mega pollution, no free space for “normal” people to enjoy the shore. Nevada says that when the economy improves the environmental restrictions will improve. So, when we’re poor, pollute away and then spend millions to fix the damage? It’s like changing the oil in your car when you can afford it, but letting it go when you can’t and hope nothing happens.
We may not agree with their actions, but at least they’re better than none at all.
So, um, in the 30 years TRPA has been in charge of improving lake clarity, exactly WHAT have they done toward that goal? I mean, real provable steps, and how much clearer IS it since they started spending HOW MANY GAZILLION dollars???
Do you mean that i can now cut down a tree on my own property.
It’s a big massive waste of resources that has little to do with clarity. How built out could this basin possibly get anyway? Doesn’t redevelopment benefit the environment through environmental retrofits? Why are we messing around moving rivers? Windows, paint colors who cares. Even BMPs… What are we doing…
No need to worry now, the senate just voted to table the situation for 2 years. I am not in total agreement with how its been run, but I think the goal is a good one and we need a united bi-state approach to how things run. Wouldn’t have worked with only one side following rules.
Everyone thinks this place would be in ruins without the TRPA but that’s not correct. Do you need your mommy around you to go to the bathroom all the time? This country is becoming a Police State.
Not EVERYONE, Bob.
Have been here 25 years. How long have you been here?
People seem to think that the lake is just fine for some reason they say “its been there for how long, and it still looks beautiful” well the truth to that yes the lake has been there for ever but since we showed up the lake has been slowly dieing cause people don’t care about what they do the the environment only what it gives them today. If we continue to allow people to destroy the lake and not take action to fix what we have already done then we as the human race then we should all die off and not be allowed to enjoy its beauty.
Be it known that the lake is dying because of roads and look at the condition of them. The fix is on improving roads and gettin water to soak into the ground. The answer is pretty simple and not complex like many think. Roads! That’s it…