Opinion: Lahontan needs to back off on TMDL time line
Publisher’s note: The following letter to Jack Clarke, chairman of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, received final approval Nov. 1 from the South Lake Tahoe City Council and is being reprinted with permission.
Dear Mr. Clarke:
This letter is being sent on behalf of the three Lake Tahoe Basin jurisdictions to request that Lahontan extend any consideration regarding NPDES permits until after January 2012. Specifically, we further request that your board also direct staff to defer circulation of a public draft permit consistent with the same time frame.
El Dorado County, Placer County and the city of South Lake Tahoe are making this joint request in order to ensure we have the time necessary to address several unresolved complex issues. Those issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Assess whether a TMDL-focused permit that provides more flexibility than what the current draft permit allows would better meet both local jurisdiction and Regional Board needs, especially with regard to the monetary challenges of meeting all current draft permit requirements;
• Outline realistic implementation goals, given the demonstrated significant shortfall in funding availability in comparison with current cost estimates;
• Address the imbalance of regulatory authority and level of enforcement of the Lahontan regulations on the California side of the Tahoe basin as compared to the federal/state stormwater regulatory and enforcement framework on the Nevada side of the Tahoe basin;
• Provide ample opportunity to review EPA input to date, including scheduling meetings to develop a common understanding between multi-jurisdictional technical staff, executives and elected officials;
• Lahontan staff response on recent local jurisdiction comments to draft permit such as registering catchments in areas where capital projects are not planned;
• Better define TRPA’s role in regulation and implementation, including BMP enforcement and potential delegation of some BMP regulation that originates with TRPA;
• Identify roles and responsibilities of other agencies for project implementation, maintenance and monitoring, including large state and federal landholders.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to working with you and your staff in addressing our issues and concerns as the analysis process progresses.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Montgomery, Placer County district 5 supervisor
Norma Santiago, El Dorado County district 5 supervisor
Claire Fortier, South Lake Tahoe mayor pro tem
No no no and no.
The TMDLs were put in place to protect the Lake. They took forever to develop and the Locals knew they were coming.
The letter to Mr. Clarke is a beaut.
If we just had a little more government and a little more money everything would be just perfect.
Long live the bureaucracies.
Orale, feel free to write a check to pay for all of the new requirements.
Noting that the (EPA) TMDL is an unfunded mandate, and that Lake Tahoe is sort of a ‘guinea pig’ for the rest of the nation with regards to the TMDL, some of the listed concerns are entirely appropriate; other concerns, perhaps even more important, are not addressed very well at all.
Given that we spent 1.5 billion dollars since the 1997 Presidential Summit, to have garnered a net 6 inches of restored clarity (read the most recent UCDavis ‘State of the Lake’ Report), a more cogent question to ask is what exactly are we trying to accomplish with TMDL, other than the typical ‘Jump – – How High ?’ knee-jerk reactions to what hoops the Government wants us to jump through, to get funded otherwise. . .
According to the current political climate, coupled with the fact of being an unfunded mandate, means such questions should be asked of such initiatives, to ascertain how effective the ‘science’ really is. . .
Speaking of laws, science, Tahoe, etc: The BEARPAW footwear company is making a donation AND giving a portion of proceeds from their footwear to The League to Save Lake Tahoe.
Shop accordingly.
DOGGA, I SAVED 60 BUCKS IN LOCALS TAXES ALONE OFF THE HILL LAST WEEK FOR SET 4 LARGE SNOW TIRES FOR A HEAVY TRUCK.
GAS WAS 3.67 SO FILLED UP.
SAVE SOME CASH, FORGET THESE TAHOE MARKETING SCAMS THAT PORTAION GOING TO CHARITY.
GOING IN THEIR POCKETS.
There are to many unanswered questions… To name a few… How does climate change fit into the clarity challenge? How do forested uplands and other restoration activities that take decades to realize fit into a clarity challenge? How do temporary and possible long term impacts from construction activities related to forest uplands restoration projects fit into the clarity challenge? How does the concept of connectivity possibly change the TMDL and the source load allocations? Why are their varying standards for Federal landholding agencies for water quality and construction related activities?
From a clarity standpoint the TMDL put the focus on the urban, basically roads systems stating that 72% of the clarity loss is responsible from this one source. That said.., one would assume that by controlling the source (connected pipes to the lake and its tributaries) would be the simplest answer. The TMDL is promoting reducing concentrations of pollutants rather than infiltration of water volumes as LID suggests. This is evident in the methodologies and models that have been developed and are incorporated into the permit / TMDL. For example, models suggest the cost benefit lies in control strategies such as undocumented street sweeping, which does not align with nearly all research on the topic.
Do we want to send ourselves down a road of uncertainty when the answer lies in a dozen pipes going to the lake / streams, which are also responsible for polluting our near shore? Does the answer really lay in expensive man operated lift stations with perpetual maintenance and replacement costs?
The excessive cost, idea we can change concentrations by filtration / sweeping and strict timeline will cost more financial resources than any jurisdiction can afford and does not guarantee improvements. Basically, a giant paper reporting exercise…
Unfunded mandates are financial burdens placed upon local governments by state actions, often resulting in increased property taxes at the local level. For stormwater, an unfunded mandate is also something that the state requires that goes above and beyond what is required in the Federal Clean Water Act. Does requiring specific models and promoting source control measures as suggested exceed that? It is not being said by regulators exactly what needs to be done, except the caveat is with that thinking; there is only one way to do it, so it’s implied, at the taxpayer’s expense…
The Federal government designated this body of water as an Outstanding Natural Resource, so the requirement of protecting it, while having our road discharges nearly meet drinking water standards is near impossible. The only water body in our nation comparable is Crater Lake, which is highly protected. This Basin is not a pristine environment… It never will be ever again.. Attempting to restore this area to pre anthropogenic conditions (1968 clarity levels) while piping stormwater to the lake, driving speedboats / cars, and allowing millions to pollute here is crazy. It is setting our local agencies up for failure with the expense paid for by the local taxpayer. We need simple solutions, not a complex, expensive, burdensome program… In this time of decreasing revenues and increasing expectations, the overall cost has to be taken into consideration. Even if the next EIP is funded, and the funds are distributed like the first EIP1, then we will continue to waste our precious diminishing resources on a program without getting the low hanging fruit, spending dwindling money in areas with little benefit and not meeting objectives.., again… Is this in the Lakes best interest?
John – its better than letting the Lake deteriorate.
Most of these projects are paid by federal monies. Congress needs to get off its butt and protect this national resource and we need to get off our butts and tell them its the right thing to do.
I agree Orale!!!
I worked on wilderness negotiations and wild river designations 25 years ago in Idaho and the establishment of the TMDL concept was used to establish the river designations, in other words how they were polluted, from what sources. The state of Idaho is dependant on its high quality river/lake /water designations and the entire state benefits from these high quality water resources. I find it ironic that a conservative and red neck state like Idaho is enlightened enough to see that protection of these resources is a good thing and here in Lake Tahoe some less than enlightened folks think having protection in place for the lake is just another liberal entitlement. What ignorance!!!
I agree with Bilderburg. Concentrate our dollars on the 72% of the TMDL that flows directly from our streets and roadways into Lake Tahoe by means of huge outflow pipes. Checkout http://www.tahoepipeclub.com for more answers and documentation. Stop wasting our dwindling dollars on expensive methods with little results and concentrate them on the area with the maximum affect, Roads and their untreated runoff directly into the Lake!
The tmdl is just the latest attempt by lahontan to regulate improvements to lake clarity. First look at their lake clarity track record over the past few decades where billions of state, federal and private funds were wasted. Their regulatory oversight has contributed to this failure by perpetuating flawed science, regulatory purgatory, and ineffective actions, the tmdl will be no different. Applying the same effort and expecting a different result is insane. The clarity program has failed and If you want more of the same, keep letting lahontan call the shots