Opinion: SB271 an opportunity to open dialogue between states
By Joanne Marchetta
In the final hours of the 2011 Nevada state legislative session, the bill known as SB271 passed, bringing with it opportunities for the two states that bound Lake Tahoe to reinvigorate the spirit of compromise that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact more than 40 years ago. The bi-state consensus that brought about that original agreement was no doubt hard-fought, and when Lake Tahoe’s future is in the balance, the spirit of compromise has succeeded in bringing the two states together in a significant way.
SB271 is the latest signal sounding that Lake Tahoe’s future is currently in the balance. Discussing bi-state consensus is again in order, but the pressing issues are different. Forty years ago, the problems were rampant growth and a lack of environmental controls on new development. Change was needed. Today, Lake Tahoe faces an outmoded economic base, aging infrastructure, and the need for a stormwater control program to restore lake clarity that could cost up to $1.5 billion over the next 20 years.
Joanne Marchetta
Throughout the proceedings on SB271, the Nevada legislators and stakeholders who worked on this bill showed clearly that they want to protect Lake Tahoe. But they also want TRPA to again be the solution, not the roadblock, to needed changes at Lake Tahoe. And rather than look at this legislation as a negative for the lake, the better view is for the community to see the encouraging possibilities for reasonable reforms it opens up for us.
The hearings gave us an opportunity to show many that TRPA had already set a new course within the agency with its strategic plan. Since last year, we have been changing and improving our operations to meet more regional challenges and to reposition the agency as an environmental innovator and partnership builder. We were able to educate them on how we are honing the focus of the Regional Plan Update on water quality gains and the need for environmental redevelopment of Lake Tahoe’s commercial centers. The feedback we received on the agency’s new direction was positive and our commitment to changing the way we do business received broad support from legislators, state agency representatives and members of the public. Regardless, concerns lingered about provisions in our bi-state Compact.
SB271 brought these frustrations to the fore in Nevada and they can be seen clearly in the final text of the bill. The law calls for amendments to the Compact regarding our board’s voting rules, consideration of changing economic conditions in our regional planning, and placing the legal burden of proof that an action violates the Compact on the challenger.
When one considers the hurdles it takes to amend the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, the significance of Lake Tahoe as a natural resource is evident. Amending the Compact to reflect the provisions in Nevada’s SB271 would require a vote of both houses of the California Legislature, as well as ratification by the U.S. Congress and signatures from the governor of California and the president of the United States.
But keep in mind that the Compact was successfully amended once before. The Compact under which TRPA operates today was amended in this way in 1980 to require the adoption of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities and to add broader state representation to the TRPA Governing Board. What ushered those amendments through the process was the possibility for more radical outcomes. Ultimately, statesmanship and a spirit of compromise that focused on what the two states had in common rather than their differences prevailed. What they had in common was the continued health of a natural resource that is invaluable to both states and the nation. The same holds true today.
It’s important to note the final Nevada bill does not pull the state out of the Tahoe Compact and sets 2015 as a date for changes to be implemented with a possible extension to 2017 if the state proclaims that progress is being made. While nothing immediately changes on the ground as a result of this bill, TRPA remains committed to its mission to protect the spectacular environment of the Tahoe region and to implement the policy direction of the two states.
We’ve made considerable strides in our 40-plus-year history — we didn’t allow Lake Tahoe to become a city the size of San Francisco. We worked with agency partners to conserve thousands of sensitive parcels in the Lake Tahoe Basin. And, we’ve arrested the slide in the lake’s extraordinary clarity. These accomplishments would have been impossible working in a vacuum and continued partnerships are crucial to attacking the Basin’s challenges. If Gov. (Brian) Sandoval signs SB271, we’re hopeful the Nevada legislation will kick start a revitalized dialogue between California and Nevada about the direction of Lake Tahoe so TRPA can continue making the positive difference needed for the lake and our communities in the 21st century.
Joanne Marchetta is executive director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
Joanne Marchetta seems to be intent on putting lipstick on a pig. However, any eighth grade student can read the TRPA charter and determine that the TRPA does not have the authority it currently claims.
Take a look at Article VI of the TRPA charter and you’ll see that its powers are supposed to be “general and regional in application,” leaving the writing and enforcement of specific and local ordinances to local jurisdictions like the state of Nevada:
“Whenever possible without diminishing the effectiveness of the regional plan, the ordinances, rules, regulations and policies shall be confined to matters which are general and regional in application, leaving to the jurisdiction of the respective States, counties and cities the enactment of specific and local ordinances, and rules, regulations and policies which conform to the regional plan.”
What part of “whenever possible,” or “confined to matters which are general and regional,” or “leaving to the jurisdiction of… cities,” does the TRPA, or Joanne Marchetta, not understand?
The elected officials of Nevada have made a courageous decision to strip the TRPA of its rogue enforcement goons. Instead, Nevada has chosen to uphold the Constitution and protect its residents from such overregulation and illegal abuse.
Too bad Ms. Marchetta isn’t listening. Instead of admitting to these grievous errors, she ignores them and tries to sell us an ugly pig with pretty red lipstick.
Even with lipstick, the TRPA is still the same ugly pig that just authorized the construction of a new casino on the North Shore.
Redundant agency, we already have laws to protect our waterways, and any special ones we deem necessary, we can implement at the local level.
Steve if an 8th grade could do it, why haven’t any lawyers done it? I am pretty sure they have tried.
There is a regional plan, all entities must conform to it.
WHAT PEOPLE WON’T SAY WHEN THEY ARE AT THE OTHER END OF THE STICK WHEN THEY TO CAN BECOME PART THE PROFENSAL UNEMPLOYED!
PACK YOUR BAGS LADY.
PROFESSIONAL…..Before some quack loses their load over spelling,grammar.
*part of the professionally unemployed
Can’t really help you out on that first part….
Wonder how many people post from work while on the clock?
ClearWater, I suspect it’s mostly people with government jobs. . .LOL!
I have noticed weekends are pretty dead and you get a new group posters,also after 5 people disappear..Ride on Dog you’re probably right.
You just now noticed that? lol It’s always been that way because anonymous poster and non anonymous posters use the wok computer. Easier that way.
Appears to be a private conversation being posted…don’t get into a pickle!
I like Joanne’s attitude, although it does come across somewhat as a “sigh of relief” that there is perhaps another three years to play with. . . before it ‘hits the fan’ again.
When she says “What they had in common was the continued health of a natural resource that is invaluable to both states and the nation. The same holds true today”, she is correct.
The allegorical story of how Tahoe came to be a two-state lake is also illustrative:
Both states wanted to claim Tahoe as their own, but neither wanted to take full responsibility for it. California because it already had so much on its’ plate, Nevada because they didn’t want to burden themselves as such a small state, given that Californians would get much use of it. Sound familiar ?
This account echoes in the current and latest efforts at “righting the ship” of dual statehood, as participatory in TRPA.
As TRPA the structure has been called into question, the answer should include the sustainable fact that nature’s law is not subject to any “vote”, balanced or otherwise. To think that is part of the problem: think aerodynamics or thermodynamics.
That man has transgressed so badly means that the state of the world does not get better by seeing how little we can get by with in our green efforts (like the construction industry is prone to do), nor be mollified by employeees’ leaving their cars home for a day.
The latter has the religious connotation of sinning all week, then wanting relief on Sunday. LEED Platinum buildings, for example, would encourage those within to utilize the bus stop at their door, and their bike racks out front – that the building is not built green is not the point: not driving with as much pollution is.
A higher rated example of action – Reducing automobile usage: Their # 2 charge, as I recall.
As TRPA and the others have decided that “sediment” is to be reduced – at a cost of 1.5 billion over 20 years (it was 10) – it would be much cheaper to change people’s habits – particularly since we now know what contributes and what doesn’t.
Supporting foreign depletables, indeed. . .
Not to ascribe some part of the answer to their own function is unbelievably naive, as is their capacity for believing that what is needed is just another way to politically balance internal interests.
“Opening the dialogue” should mean much more than satisfying each state’s political ambition; it could also set a new tone for the global influence she left out above. The nation and the world are going to need much more orientation than they currently get as to what we folks need to do to live healthier, without harming our surroundings as much as we do.
When John Singlaub adopted the premise of “diminishing lawsuits” in redoing their 20 year plan, that was not an appropriate agenda, beyond as it was from the very real need to create an understanding of what it really takes to protect an asset like Tahoe.
That it may not be as difficult as various agencies purport it to be, in justifying earlier needs for more and more money to accomplish, is never sought – but should be. Clear and simple.
Government difficulties have always arisen from the tendency to “throw money” at issues, contributing to the societal idea that money is all that will do it. Not true, as we are now becoming aware – human behavior is not to be bought; it is to be educated correctly.
The Lake Tahoe Basin can (and should be) the harbinger of a bright future – for itself, as well as for those who pass through – of a place which “finally” gets it. . . but has not so far.
The idea that TRPA kept Tahoe from being a metropolis of 800,000 is ridiculous, and, as her favorite simile, needs to be retired – now.
TRPA can stand up and be a leader, instead of the recent tendency to describe itself as a witless pawn between the two states: “Who, me ? – I’m just trying to do my job !”. That’s a classic cop-out, if ever there was one, not to be dignified further.
TRPA would do itself a favor, and do “strong and silent” work, not to be leading with their chin so often, as they seem prone to do now.
‘Strong and silent’ would mean they could hum along in the background, secure in knowing that all constituents are doing what is necessary – instead of second-guessing the contradictions of their own need to ‘get up to speed’.
That’s what continually drags them ‘front & center’ all the time to answer what they usually can’t answer – which merely wastes their time and ours. . .
There is now no time (and probably no money, either) to further politicize things – and we would not want them to have any reason to blame lack of funding as to why it does not get done again.
Effective/ Efficient – with the money they do get. . . the only fiduciary answer.
Clarify not ‘muddify’ – the way to success. . .