Lake Tahoe Restoration Act moves out of committee
By KRNV-TV
WASHINGTON – Sen. Harry Reid today hailed passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011 out of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
The act, which Reid sponsored in 2009, would restore and protect the ecological integrity of Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin. This year, the Nevada Democrat is co-sponsoring the bill with California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. The LTRA will protect Lake Tahoe’s exceptional natural resources and ensure that the area remains a premier tourist destination.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act would bring millions of dollars to the basin. Photo/LTN file
“We must take every step possible to protect the international treasure that is Lake Tahoe,” Reid said. “Over the past decade, we’ve made progress by reversing the declining water clarity of Lake Tahoe, but we cannot let up. This legislation will protect Lake Tahoe’s unique ecosystem and ensure that it remains a top-notch tourist destination for years to come. I look forward to taking the next step that will boost our economy and improve our environment.”
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act builds on successful restoration work already happening in the Tahoe Basin by authorizing $415 million over ten years to improve water clarity, reduce the threat of wildfire, and restore the natural landscape. The LTRA would specifically fund high-priority projects focused on aquatic invasive species prevention, storm water management, watershed restoration, Lahontan cutthroat trout reintroduction, and hazardous fuels reduction.
The LTRA is more of “all the wrong things in all the wrong places” because it neglects urban storm water which is the primary means for clarity loss. We keep trying the same things and expecting a different result. The first 1.5 billion completely failed to improve clarity loss or even to slow down the rate of clarity loss. Another 400 million is good money after bad…. Unless they start to use the money for once on effective actions in the urban watersheds that are flowing into the lake. It really is that simple. But the LTRA keeps spending money on the wrong stuff??
I’m with chuck…
Reid thinks we reversed clarity loss? He misinformed. Clarity is as bad as ever, went down 3.7 feet last year alone. It has been worse 4 of the past 5 years!!
With a snowpack over 150%, and streams running at peak for months, a loss in clarity is normal. Clarity increases during drought.
“The first 1.5 billion completely failed to improve clarity loss or even to slow down the rate of clarity loss.”
That is not what the data shows.
That 150 percent snowpack melted in 2011, the latest clarity data available to the public is from 2010, the 2011 data which includes the big snowpack won’t be released until later next year. But we had a dry fall in 2011 so clarity should be improving these past 6 months or so.
But no one is claiming that the clarity is improving, everyone knows clarity is getting worse, just look at the data. The only thing anyone is claiming is that the rate of clarity loss is decreasing. But for certain clarity is still worsening, look at the graph in the 2011 state of the lake report if you don’t believe me. Also, for establishing a trend, the 1997/98 data should be thrown out as outliers because those years clarity losses were the result of an extreme 100-year flood. Without the 1997/98 data the declining clarity trend is even more apparent.
But Reid claim that “we’ve made progress by reversing the declining water clarity” is completely false.
They passed the law, but did not appropriate any funds, meaning, the law only says if congress or the president find 400 million, its ok to spend it on this Lake Tahoe restoration act. It’s meaningless without the funding Reid.
To restore the clarity of Lake Tahoe we need not look any further than the TMDL clarity source category contribution. If congress and the State are using clarity as a surrogate of our success then we best make sure the funding align with the delivered expectation over the course of the funding sunset. This means funding those priority areas that have the greatest benefit to Lake Clarity for the least cost. This also means shoreline, stream channel erosion and non urban upland are not something we should be funding excessively with clarity monies if they are not a significant part of the TMDL or implementation strategy to improve clarity. Activities such as Lahontan Trout introduction, streams restoration, and everything outside of the urban is siphoning resources from the true reason Tahoe is losing clarity, which is urban stormwater and road runoff… Infiltrate the urban runoff and the near shore will respond also… If 72% of the clarity loss is coming from the urban, to meet a clarity objective we are best served spending 72% of the funding on that source. By not doing such continues to perpetuate a failed program.
Wastewater’effluents are the main enemy of Lake Tahoe’s clarity.
“Bilderberg “Lahontan Trout introduction””
Quite literally, killing possibly 90% of the current(prior fish) to reintroduce/give em (cutthrout trout) more of a chance of survival, is pretty hard for me to process.
What are the logistics of returning the Keys subdivision area as close as possible within reason to being a filter again?
I agree.. The studies conducted at Fallen Leaf do not support the theory that success can be achieved with the Cutthroat. They simply cannot survive with the Mackinaw unless they are a certain size and even then their young can’t survive. If we poison them, we simply would be making an ecological mistake. The Kokanee is not native either, but has become a symbol of the South Shore or “Tahoe South” for streams.. I don’t believe you or I am native either, yet no one is eradicating us and reintroducing the Indians. Point is…, spend the funding where it is best served…
My opinion on your reference to the keys is that restoration would be unrealistic and not implementable. First the Tahoe process does not facilitate timely project delivery and planning costs are insane. The environmental process alone, prior to engaging any kind of implementation strategy would be a decade or more. The resources needed to buy out critical areas, restore to pre development conditions and wait to see a result would be timely and expensive. Definitely not inline with any kind of clarity challenge as proposed by the TMDL. Not entirely impossible, but not incredibly plausible. Restoring pre development hydrology is practiced everyday in areas outside of Tahoe, which include infiltration of the runoff volume at its source. This could be completed in the keys through conveyance disconnection via curb removal and rain garden installation. This however is not practiced in Tahoe… The keys has become its own ecosystem fueling invasive species and contaminants of all sort. To restore this would take the entire LTRA or more and then you still have contact recreation, motor sports and activities that continue to cause the decline of Tahoe’s vertical transparency including un-restored urban subdivisions in other areas all around the lake. Solution is simple; focus the precious funding in those areas where the largest pollutant load reductions can be achieved, reducing directly connected URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF volumes through sustainable infiltration based solutions….
“Waste waters’ effluents are the main enemy of Lake Tahoe’s clarity.”
If you know what effluent stands for you would then know that all effluent waters in the Tahoe Basin are exported out-of-basin. The water receives tertiary treatment (the highest level of waste water treatment) and is either released in Alpine County, or the Truckee River east of the Town of Truckee.
I agree that the focus of restoration in the Tahoe Basin should focus on the urban areas, and the highways. Everyday I see a street sweeper with a grey-black plume of dust hovering around it I wonder what the hell they think they are improving???
O.K. The main enemy of Tahoe’s clarity is chemically-treated urban wastewater that has just been “separated” from the effluents.
David, read what Huskies wrote again. All effluent is piped out of the Basin. And while that makes no sense, it is how it is treated. Secondly, no chemicals are used in treating effluent because its not necessary.
So just to make it easy, its road run-off that is causing problems. And even that would be easy to treat, except there is no room. The roads are so close to the lake that we would have to build treatment plants on lake shore to fix the problem. Or capture and pump the water to a facility. But that would take a heck of a lot of money.
disagree… There is plenty of room infiltrate or filtrate naturally… Constructed Wetlands are used all the time to reduce loads (upwards of 50%) as well as rain gardens and shallow depressional features. Just because you are next to the lake does not mean you cannot infiltrate or treat water naturally with wetland veg. This is a hoax that everyone has us believing. For areas that are constrained, we could reduce the impervious cover by 10% and treat the water through wetland filtration or engineered infiltration systems. Once we go away from this concept, we begin going toward unsustainable and high cost micro filtration or pumping systems as you suggested. This is not a direction we should go… Treating stormwater through LID concepts are possible and completed every day in areas outside of Tahoe. As you stated, road runoff is the main problem and sweeping is not the answer.
It sounds like Davis is confused… Numeric Effluent Limits were held by Lahontan as the main regulatory enforcement driver for stormwater for many years. These were basically heading toward waste water standards for all stormwater discharging to a receiving water body. These were however, never really enforced… The TMDL has changed all this, so this is now a mute issue. As many have said, wastewater does not go to Tahoe and no chemically separated water from this process flows to the lake. OK David…
Robert a buddy of mine engineers treatment wetlands. And he told me that wetlands can of course work, but the treatment wetland must be sized for water volume and growing season. So in Tahoe treatment wetlands have to be storage and treatment wetlands because plants only work for 5 months out of the year. So then that leads straight back to infiltration because of the lack of room for storage.
I get what you are saying about infiltration. I have my doubts because of the high water tables at lake level. If you cant go deep, then you have to go big. That runs into the same problem again.
Good Discussion… I don’t entirely agree or disagree… I do agree with the infiltration component and know these systems can be implemented right next to the lake using flow spreading, swales, micro basins and rain gardens. Instead we put in massive amount of curb and gutter which conveys elevated levels of polluted runoff volume to the discharge point. You then are forced to treat or store large volumes. That is the main difference between the conveyance approach and the infiltration approach.
Many processes happen in a wetland including particle settling, coagulation, flocculation and impaction. Don’t forget that the vegetation is still present under the snow the other 7 months, therefore they can be effective year round… Wetlands treat water and have been measured to reduce the fine sediment loads by 35% or more on an annual basis. That is sufficient to meet a clarity challenge. The wetlands in Tahoe operate effectively year round and normally the temperatures in Tahoe are not sub freezing for days on end creating impermeable tundralike conditions, so they do not freeze like they would in Minnesota, North Dakota or Alaska. Unless they freeze solid or have an ice layer preventing water from entering the wetland, they will work well. So for most conditions the wetlands will treat water very effectively in most conditions. They definitely work well in a range of conditions… You are correct in that they do not deal with water quality volumes; however they do take a certain portion of volume, but are not operated in a storage capacity role for retaining and infiltration design storms, such as an infiltration basin. Most systems operate in a first flush (first part of the storm is more polluted than the end) manner, so in this case if you operate this in the first flush you will treat even a larger portion of runoff. You are correct about the issue relative to seasons and their effectiveness, but nonetheless wetlands treat water year round. Go out during the next rain on snow event and witness what happens in a wetland. There is a certain level of treatment that occurs regardless of storage volume. I will say that volume reduction should be goal #1 though…
Good to see a critical thinker out there… Anyone else care to chime in…
Here is a reference from the EPA…
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/hand.pdf
any legislation being pushed by both Reid and Feinstein this desperately has little to do with any genuine concern for the health of Lake Tahoe. It’s about the “millions” that will be shunted to the contracts and the contractors who are connected to Reid, Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum. When talking about Reid and the Feinstein family, keep your eye on the contracts, ALWAYS on the contractors.