2 groups sue to stop implementation of TRPA Regional Plan
By Kathryn Reed
The Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore filed a lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to stop the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan from taking effect in its entirety.
“We hope to achieve a reconciliation with the TRPA over their plan and get it strengthened,” Laurel Ames with the Tahoe Area Sierra Club told Lake Tahoe News. Feb. 11 was the deadline to file such a lawsuit.
Those two conservation groups had been vocal at most of the meetings leading up to the adoption of the Regional Plan in December. The new plan replaced the 1987 document.
Politics at Lake Tahoe can be as turbulent at the lake itself. Photo/LTN file
Water quality, air quality, local delegation, appeals process and coverage are some of the main issues the two groups have problems with in the latest Regional Plan.
“This lawsuit shows just how out of touch the Sierra Club is with the realities that face Lake Tahoe today,” TRPA Executive Director Joanne Marchetta said in a statement.
It will be up to the court to decide if an injunction is put in place, which the groups are seeking. For now, though, the bi-state regulatory agency is acting on the belief the 2-month-old plan is the law of the land.
“It is in effect until a judge or some other process tells us it is not,” Jeff Cowen, spokesman with the TRPA, told Lake Tahoe News.
The League to Save Lake Tahoe, often a lead agency when comes to suing the TRPA, is not a party of the lawsuit. In a prepared statement Executive Director Darcie Goodman Collins condemned the suit.
“The League is disappointed that litigation has been filed on the Regional Plan. This is the wrong move for Lake Tahoe. While litigation is a useful tool of last resort, in this case, it will only delay the implementation of any positive environmental benefits contained in Tahoe’s new Regional Plan. While the plan is not perfect, it is a product of community collaboration and compromise, and is designed to be adaptive,” Goodman said.
An unknown is what the state of Nevada will do in regards to Senate Bill 271. That remains in place with the threat of the Silver State pulling out of the bi-state Compact in 2015. Passage of a Regional Plan is part of what SB271 was about. But if the Regional Plan unravels, so might the plans of some Nevada lawmakers to repeal SB271.
“Any litigation will likely result in the dissolution of this Compact and no Compact means no regional environmental standards for Lake Tahoe. Preserving the Compact and implementing the (Regional Plan update) will provide the greatest long-term benefit to the lake and its communities,” Goodman said.
I don’t think the TRPA stands for much,its always seems like a good idea on paper, that’s about far as it goes,unless you got plenty money, good attorneys, to get what you want in negations.
That hole didn’t have enough parking spaces for the hole project but they let that slide,WHY? Could it be $$$?
Nevada smells the stench like a lot normal home owners have for years.
Quite few locals more less don’t even pay any attention to this group of over paid snail,weed, killers, to even tell them where go when the sun doesn’t shine.
The State California and Nevada could do a much better job in getting things taken care of between them, than having a trpa referee Organization calling the shots on a Game that has loaded dice for the people up in that Kingsbury building of EPA Earth Aliens.
If the rpu had focussed on conserving Tahoe ecology rather than facilitating new development they might not be getting sued right now. Follow your charter trpa and not special interest developers
If Nevada pulls out there won’t be a charter. Then what?
Orale, then all development would be controlled by the locals and state. Because of CEQA California would still be run by the Sierra Club. But Nevada would actually be able to move forward with redevelopment.
Darcie, good job on working constructively with the TRPA! The League is going in the right direction away from litigation and towards collaboration.
Local govt. control could take Tahoe back to the “dark ages” of uncontrolled growth. Not all local jurisdictions have the best interest of the Lake at heart. For example, Placer wants more tourist accommodation units,bigger larger developments (see Tahoe City Vision Plan)to increase their pocket books.
Who knows what Nevada and their gaming/housing market interests would want to do with their side of the Lake; expand urban boundaries, develop state lands, increase the capacity and size of the casinos?
No surprise here. If NV pulls out then CA will really be in trouble. Maybe this is the best thing for CA side of the south shore. Let the uber-environmental groups prevail. In the short term there would be a lot of pain but long term if the businesses’ and city all go bankrupt and the houses get more run down than current….. from the ashes the phoenix will rise.
Looks like the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore are continuing their campaign to place the final nails in the coffin of the City of South Lake Tahoe. Without the easing of outmoded TRPA restrictions the ability of California basin communities to make improvements will be impossible. Nevada will follow through on SB271 and withdraw from the TRPA Compact, and tiring of South Lake Tahoe’s continual unwillingness to collaborate on methods to upgrade the entire South Shore region will take control of their own South Shore economic well-being. Efforts will take place to expand the Minden-Tahoe Airport so they can service Douglas County’s wealthy visitors, and the City of South Lake Tahoe will further decline into the armpit of the Lake with lousy, rundown, low-income housing for California’s minimum wage worker bees that will service Douglas County’s new, upscale, income generating business enterprises.
This is not a rosy picture but it is what happens when people refuse to work together collaboratively toward a better outcome.
To use the terminology that TRPA itself likes to use, seems this ‘pointless’ lawsuit is very pointed, indeed.
Thanks Sierra Club for staying on point.