Opinion: Is era of cooperation over at Lake Tahoe?
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the July 3, 2011, Sacramento Bee.
The upcoming annual Lake Tahoe Summit, to be hosted this year by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Aug. 16, promises to be a doozy. The challenges to the lake’s legendary clarity and to cooperation between California and Nevada are greater than ever.
• Water quality. Lake Tahoe remains one of the clearest large lakes in the world. But its famed clarity has been declining since the post-World War II building boom. Homes, casinos and golf courses brought sedimentation, pollution, and algae growth. University of California, Davis, scientists measured the lake’s clarity at 102 feet in 1968, reaching a low of 64 feet in 1997. In 2009, it was 68 feet. Aggressive measures to attack pollution and sedimentation remain necessary.
• Governance. In a serious threat to two-state cooperation, the Nevada Legislature in June passed and the governor signed a bill to withdraw from the two-state compact governing Lake Tahoe by 2015 – unless California and the U.S. Congress adopt amendments to the compact to give Nevada greater voting power. Currently, the two states have equal representation, with seven members each on the governing board.
To approve changes to the regional plan, currently a majority of members (four) from each state must vote “aye,” a fair process. Nevada wants to change that – to nine of 14 votes without regard to state. It also wants to change the voting requirements for particular projects.
When exactly was the era of cooperation?
Why are the backsliders fighting the League to Save Lake Tahoe./
Noting that the title of this op-ed piece starts with a question (“Is era of cooperation over at Tahoe ?”) with a questionable premise, that of their being effective ‘cooperation’ in the first place, some perspective can be offered using parts of the comments above (Sacramento Bee responses)
Since the Presidential Summit in 1997, it is noted that $ 1.487 billion has been spent for four feet of clarity for redeeming a 34 foot loss, calculated out as a $ 371,750,000 per foot of recovery.
Given that lake clarity has been a political football the entire time of their existence, it is time for an agency like TRPA to face the oncoming reality that this level of funding will not be available any more.
It is equally clear that Ms. Marchetta’s “position papers”, while laudable in their implied change in drection, are not sufficient, given the entrenched and troubled nature of their regional position.
One of the fundamental aspects of the bistate arrangement concerns “land use”, but Nevada & California have completely different origins: i.e.,California recognizes ‘public access’ while Nevada law (from the 1860’s) does not.
For Joanne to steer in the direction of planning, versus whatever they thought was their emphasis before, merely exacerbates that difference when it comes to trying to arrive at economic impacts, versus creating a ‘new’ update to their 20-year regional plan (recognized correctly as 4-years overdue, soon to be 5-years with the announced date of December 2012).
The established foundation of their work is their “heralded” threshold structure, which has been rightfully described by some key players as ‘sacred cows’, particularly since some of their staff openly admit that they have not come close to meeting them – is being close to meeting only 2 out of the 9 reasonable @ $ 370,000,000/per foot of clarity when there is another 34 feet to go ?
Joanne has also implied that TRPA is being victimized by the profound differences between the two states, as being caught in the middle is somehow picking on them, absent any merit on either side.
There are some here very aware that this perceived “poor me” attitude is ridiculous in the face of years of “operational arrogance” – defined as “conceding everything to oneself, and nothing (or not much) to others”.
Ms. Marchetta’s current hope of bringing the two states “to the table” due to a three year reprieve in Nevada’s pulling out of the Federal Compact is, unfortunately, both naive and misguided, as their appears to be a fundamental flaw that will hinder any sustainable future (including any absence of acrimony) that may be desired.
In global sustainability terms, the very thought that human behavior and its’ impact can be definitively decided by a “vote” is ludicrous, whether it is normal for our culture or not.
Established principles of sustainability are iron-clad enough to mediate disputes on any specific viabilty of economic development, but some still want to consider their obsolete positions as sacrosanct as ‘enough’.
Some science is irrefutable, as are climate change issues currently still ignored as we focus on our divisiveness, but my reference will be to either thermodynamics or even aerodynamics, neither being subject to any “vote”. The former is undisputed as to the way the world actually works, and the latter can be characterized as “it either flies or it doesn’t”. . . Nature does not necessarily work in ways that Man thinks it should; are we ever to learn that lesson ?.
If so, Tahoe may be the place to learn it. . .
Tahoe being the cherished ‘place’ that it is, needs a much higher level of thinking to (1) get better ‘bang for our bucks’, and (2) to balance out the continually over-politicized nature of our decision-making process. Along with a higher level, we might also get the science needed for overall comprehension, notably in holistic and systemic considerations, available to all who enjoy it, wherever they might be from. . .
satori offers a very very interesting point which no one wants to bring up, the overall cost effectiveness of reaching the clarity goal, the cost per foot of clarity at $371m per foot is not sustainable going into the future. An emerging strategy going forward may just to be to maintain the clarity levels we have and not lose ground. The economic realities have already begun to shape the discussion and will continue to in a bigger way as we movie forrward.
satori offers a very very interesting point which no one wants to bring up, the overall cost effectiveness of reaching the clarity goal, the cost per foot of clarity at $371m per foot is not sustainable going into the future. An emerging strategy going forward may just be to maintain the clarity levels we have and not lose ground. The economic realities have already begun to shape the discussion and will continue to in a bigger way as we movie forrward.
If Satori’s numbers are correct, that is really poor value for our tax dollars, the results are almost negligible.
The numbers are actually worse than that.. Stop messing around in the woods and get to the root of the problem..! Urban Stormwater!!! Those stream projects are killing the lake while others are held to strict TMDL regulations….. Things have to change to improve clarity. Like streamlining and funding the areas that are actually causing clarity loss. The money went to a bunch of thresholds that had not impact on the health of the lake or to the contrary degraded the lake.
With all due respect to Joe Man, “messing around in the woods” (presuming he means forest health) is itself a “storm water runoff” issue as forests are known as ‘water factories’ in slowing down the precipitation that occurs before it even hits the ground.
Snow accumulates in the branches, then slowly melts – a process that occurs all the way to the ground where vegetation slows it still again; this is a natural filtration method that cleanses water yet again over the rocks and pebbles in the stream – gravity flow takes it to the lake, where it contributes to ‘clarity’, from our 60+ sources.
Absent this process, erosion and contamination would be even worse – to further bear bad news about the EPA-mandated TMDL process, the latest trend here and elsewhere is, to my mind, “dead in the water” (pun intended) as it can only measure things after the fact.
I mention this in the context of this Op-Ed piece, as better bang for the buck will not occur until we preventively shift human behavior to do & know better, which does not require as much capital-intensive disturbance (civil engineering, etc.) that tallies-up towards the next 1.5 billion they think they want. It is, after all, our money.
This is where the public needs to be involved. . .
The government and the populace are not anymore in the mood to “throw money” at projects, especially when they are so used to revenue streams that regular businesses would love to have: unending.
That is changing, as they are about to end, at least as they know it. . . this is what so important and yet “disruptive” about true sustainability, agencies can not hide behind their own complications of the issues; they simply need to pay closer attention to the way nature does it and follow that. . .
Watch a river change its’ own meander back to natural, given the chance – the Carson Valley is devoid of development (considered undevelopable) precisely for this reason. Nature intrudes upon the way man wants to do it – at his peril.
To Carl’s point: there are considerable other attributes to sustainability besides just satisfying TRPA’s charge (i.e., saving their behind)- as it is also overall about becoming conducive to all of life, instead of fighting it all the time with our ill-thought out ways.
Our kind can and will appreciate that – if it’s not too late. . . as it is for some other kinds already.
Money alone will not do it. . .
Thanks for the crude lesson in hydrology I already knew Satori and I agree with some of your points, but let me educate you. The woods are not the problem with clarity loss, urban stormwater is. The Lahontan Regional Water Board TMDL has estimated that 72% (and perhaps greater) of the loss of lake Tahoe’s famed clarity is from the urban environment. In the past through the EIP, the stormwater component received approximately 15% of the budget for something that was 72% of the clarity problem. This is the first reason we have not met objectives. Funding was not focused in the right areas…
Second, the USFS (and others), whom are not part of the TMDL or regulated by anyone is completing projects that are counter to the water quality goals of restoring Lake Tahoe. For example, in Blackwood Canyon it was brought to my attention by a local hydrologist of elevated levels of silt coming out of the creek. The site disturbance is enormous! Bare mineral soil everywhere, tens of acres leveled, no vegetation, fine sediment sitting waiting for water to take it away. The TMDL has also calculated that less than 4% of the loss of Tahoe’s clarity is coming from stream banks (basinwide!) So why are we doing these projects? They do restoration to restore natural function (and not just water quality), yet the disturbance to streamzones when playing god and creating channels, forces mass sedimentation, erosion during construction and huge losses of sediment (and habitat) for many years. It takes 10-20 years for a man made system to begin to reach any kind of equilibrium. How does that correlate to the Lake Tahoe Clarity challenge (do you know what that is)?
The forests are not the problem! The happy hippie scenario you point out is great, but not the issue with the loss of clarity. So lets move on from that… I agree money alone will not do it… I also agree with many of your points Satori, however this goes way beyond natural process. It’s the failure of the program to meet its original objectives and spending majority of the resources on things that have no benefit or perhaps contributions to the problem, which is why clarity won’t improve.
If the urban is the problem, then lets take this opportunity to correct it with the funding as its available to target those areas with the greatest benefit. This means improving roads! It is demonstrated that to improve water quality, road integrity and condition go hand in hand. That being the case, the roads can be improved and along with it environmental improvements (sustainable ones). The great thing about this is that we can improve roads and water quality all at once. You need good condition roads to sweep, which thereby improves your efficiency. Simple treatments such as infiltrating BMPs can be installed that take shallow depressions and allow the water to soak into the ground. The new Low Impact Development (LID) concepts goals are to restore preexisting hydrology and reduce conveyance (This also partly counter to the EIP and current water quality program). So the solution is simple…. Bring in funding to improve our Roads!!! Utilize the environmental improvement system to restore the natural ecosystem and man modified ecosystem (roads!). If we do that, the lake will respond… Get out of the woods and streamzones and focus the funding in those areas where you can get the greatest bang for the buck. The forests are not the problem for lake clarity, so why spend massive amounts of funding in the woods doing supposed restoration? The woods are not the problem, the roads are!
If we can develop sustainable funding for roads, perhaps we can meet Lake Clarity goals by improving deteriorating infrastructure and water quality all at once.
To get back to the question posed, and to recognize Carl’s appreciation for the fiscal sensibilty of either $370 million/foot of clarity or 100 million dollars/year (for the immediate past decade + the same request for the one upcoming), we will need a much different “era of cooperarion” than that implied, if we are to do “more with less”. . .
The “happy hippy” description misses the point, as that explanation was not just in response to Joe man, nor was it about ‘hydrology’ – it was more about the importance of silvicultire for those who may want to understand why the Forest Service may not be contributing.
But Joe man is right with this sentence: “funding (was) not focused in the right areas” even Lahontan is out of bounds with Mr. Singer wanting $100 million/year, in that no one has redone the “specs” to be consistent with sustainable development.
Effecrive and workable solutions wtll not be possible without the new cooperation of all entities regarding simpler & innovative orientations, like those of the Sustaiable Sites Initiative, or case histories within the EPA Watershed Academy.
“Money alone can not do it” , without a polticized starus quo recognizing better ways to innovatively spend what they have to work with. . .and I don’t think that’s what they want cooperation – as usual.
Sustainable development is not on the menu. . .yet.
Duh, roads and the falling down buildings in the urban areas are the problem, no kidding. The question of money can be solved, the reaction by the League to Ruin Lake Tahoe who sue everyone trying to improve anything, that problem cannot be solved. the league doesn’t want the roads fixed or anything improved, their mission is not to make things look better, thus improving the lake, they’d be out of a job if that happened, they keep up their goal of suing to prevent improvements so that things never get better (then they can keep saying how much they are needed) and so that the economy doesn’t improve either, this way we’re struggling so hard to survive, we’ve got nothing left to fight them with. Round and round it goes.
THERE NEVER HAS BEEN COOPERATION IN TAHOE ONLY COMPLIANCE.
The leagues way off course… More obstructionists… Roads and wise redevelopment are the solution. Tahoe does Not follow national standards and guidelines. Satori I Agree.., however the numbers are way worse than you describe. Once we are at -1.5 billion then maybe we can start change in the tahoe clarity mindset and focus funding in the right areas. But by then the funding will be gone, which may not be a bad thing. Halting the usfs and other agencies may help save the lake. Let’s develop sustainable funding for roads and remedy deteriorating infrastructure and lake clarity all at once… Is somewhat simple yet misguided….