League appeals federal court decision to allow Stateline project
Updated: Sept. 29 7:32am.
By Kathryn Reed
Back to court – that is where the Sierra Colina project is going because the League to Save Lake Tahoe is appealing last month’s ruling.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in Reno had ruled in the developer’s favor in August. The League on Sept. 28 took action to continue with its legal challenge regarding coverage of the proposed Stateline development.
“There are volumes of scientific research that indicates this type of exemption from coverage restrictions threatens the Lake’s water quality and clarity,” Carl Young, interim executive director of the League, said in a statement. “The project’s additional coverage will allow sediment and harmful pollutants to make their way through the watershed and enter Lake Tahoe, worsening the Lake’s clarity.”
So far, the League is in the minority with that way of thinking.
When Jones first heard testimony about the case this summer he all but called the suit frivolous.
Steve Kenninger and Gail Jaquish plan to turn the vacant 18 acres into 50 housing units. Environmental improvements have begun even with the project mired in a legal battle.
“Judge Jones found that Sierra Colina’s stormwater management system exceeds current regulatory requirements and will significantly reduce pollutant loads to Lake Tahoe compared to existing conditions,” Kenninger told Lake Tahoe News. “The certified EIS, which the League did not challenge, reached the same conclusion. The League’s positions are environmentally baseless and are harming the lake.”
Jaquish added, “Once again, the League promotes litigation obstructionism in Tahoe rather than environmental improvements and job creation for local workers.”
It will be up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide if the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency made the correct decision or not in approving the project, as well as if the District Court judge was correct or not in his ruling.
We are worried about a responsible development that will have virtually zero impact on the lake and meanwhile we have earth movers and excavators in the most highly sensitive meadow and river systems liberating millions of pounds of sediment. It appears some are focusing their efforts in the wrong direction…. Development CAN be responsible and redevelopment should be encouraged… Disturbance outside the urban is ruining our chances to improve the clarity of the lake, yet most are not thoroughly regulated or held to strict standards like the urban is. Noone knows whats goin on in the woods… Outta site outta mind…
There are pipes leaking all over the place and the league continues to waste their time on a project that according to the APC and the TRPA board both agree is responsible. Finally a federal district judge also agrees TRPA did their analysis properly. Why does the league continue to oppose good projects like this, Boulder Bay(and dont foget they tried to scuttle Van Sickle Bi-State Community Park)at the expense of real clarity issue.
They say they are for clarity but their actions are to oppose projects that will improve water clarity. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Come on Carl, you are just looking for another bogus report, charge the city taxpayers cash for something anyone can find by doing research online.
Takes one, to know one, and the major majority know you TOO WELL!
The League’s strategy is simple, find the highest profile project and litigate. Lest we forget, thats the best way to raise funds from their donors. What sounds better, we stopped a big development on the lake’s shore or we stopped the moving of 9 holes out in Meyers.
The League’s board gets it, if they raise money they exist, if they don’t raise money they wither. The days when the League had good intentions has long disappeared.
Bilderberg, under your philosophy no one should ever fix any environmental problems. We should just leave Super Fund sites where they are, well because there is some dust raised.
The engineers that are designing these stream restoration projects are not guessing at what they are doing. We have decades of experience. Yes some dirt gets in the creek, but then the creek functions naturally for hundreds of years.
Short term impact for long term gain
What a corrupt organization the League to Save Lake Tahoe is. The sooner they close up shop the better for the lake, they are totally using it for their own personal gain.
Not that I support LTSLT but the private sector does the same thing. Using their deep pockets to pay lawyers and lobbyists to get their way. The League is just playing the same game that everyone else does.
Also Bilderberg, is is ‘out of sight’.
John, I disagree with your thought… You must be constructing these stream destruction projects as you said “We”. Yes, I most certainly do want to improve “Lake Tahoe’s Clarity”, which if you consider road runoff (urban Pipes) an environmental problem my philosophy will solve it, including the nearshore… If by admitting “some” dirty water is getting into the creeks from restoration, then you admit that construction in these sensitive areas has its impact (temporary). They also have long term as many of these projects take decades to re-equilibrate. We don’t have a hundred years to reduce the trend… The clarity challenge is 20 years… If Sierra Colina had a sediment discharge every agency in the Basin would go up in arms and it would be in the front page of the paper for months. Yet, a HUGE sediment discharge can occur in the rivers with these restoration projects and they are completely overlooked because they are “Restoration”. Sierra Colina will have much less impact than most the restoration projects. I said MOST… Tell me then, how do short term impacts from restoration play into the Clarity challenge as developed by Lahontan. They don’t… These are not regulated activities in the TMDL, yet are contributors to the problem. Also, the environmental fix is (as another commenter pointed out) in the “stormwater Pipes” This is the regulated portion of the TMDL and the price tag is insane. If you don’t already know, stream restoration is 4% of the loss of Tahoe’s clarity according to the TMDL, so achieving fractions of a percent of 4% leaves you with minimal benefit and therefore not cost effective whatsoever. These are not lake clarity projects… The urban should be the focus and infiltrating runoff from our roads which are drastically falling apart. Whatever group appropriated this funding should take another look at how it was spent. Hence, spending 1.5 billion and continuing to watch clarity decline… There was nothing extraordinary about 2010 meteorologically…
Lastly, what do you think the Comstock era did to this Basin? Streams were straightened, logs hauled, grazing, rail systems, yet, somehow the Lake was 100’ clear when they started measuring it. It doesn’t take hundreds of years for nature to correct itself. It can happen in shorter time frames… You can argue with fluvial scientists all day, but the bottom line is this form of science is more of an art form that uses calculations and creative thought and YES some guessing. BTW, have you measured the effectiveness of these projects in the Tahoe Basin? Point me to it please… I want to see how our public dollars are being spent on these so called “effective” projects. And…, BTW, there are no superfund sites in the Tahoe Basin… Only the ones we are creating in the name of restoration…
Im glad that the league is there questioning all of these “great projects”. Id hate to think that no one questioned these developments and then there were problems. Maybe if the “Tahole” project was questioned more we wouldnt have the ugly eyesore in the middle of our town. Just because they say they will be a green project and be good for our community dosent mean its true.
I think the key here, is the League is taking this project back to court, appealing the verdict that was given.
“Carl Young, interim executive director of the LEAGUE, said “The project’s additional coverage will allow sediment and harmful pollutants to make their way through the watershed and enter Lake Tahoe, worsening the Lake’s clarity.”
“JUDGE Jones found that Sierra Colina’s stormwater management system EXCEEDS current regulatory requirements and will SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE pollutant loads to Lake Tahoe compared to existing conditions,”.
It seems pretty clear to me.
1. The Sierra Colina people have been jumping through every hoop required of them for quite some time, and they have put out a good effort to exceed government standards.
2. The League tried to stop this project and lost.
3. Now the League is just being downright combative, and preventing improvements to our area that will improve our lives, livelihoods, and lake clarity.
4. The only motivation I can wrap my head around for the Leagues continuation of hassling quality environmental improving projects are:
A. Because they need to justify their worth to their benefactors.
B.They need to use up funds donated, thus need to bill for hours preparing the case.
I don’t see any worth in this group, they use and abuse people on both sides.
I have seen no changes since Rochelle stepped down, obviously this is what they stand for, $
I hope that all of the “Keep Tahoe…” bumperstickers are being torn off as quickly as possible. Enough.
Wow CARE!
Roch going to live the good live,don’t worry!Some people do get happiness from doing what they think right.
Have to admire some one who held their ground for 20 years, no matter what business you are in.
Win some,lose some, but like race book odds ,if you do 53% you are making tons cash.
I would share this ladies ethic’s more than a lot cash cows of higher politics.
Keep the faith for your beliefs!