Sandoval not ready to commit to TRPA
By Sandra Chereb, AP
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval favors keeping alive the threat to leave the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Compact, a decades-old agreement that has governed environmental controls and development in the basin , a legislative committee was told Tuesday.
But conservation groups said given more cooperation with California, environmental groups and business interests, repealing Nevada’s threat would show the state’s commitment to collaboration and tackling the lake’s environmental challenges.
Gov. Brian Sandoval wants to keep Nevada’s options open regarding inclusion in TRPA. Photo/LTN file
No action was taken April 2 by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources on SB229, which would repeal the 2011 withdrawal legislation.
Steve Robinson, Sandoval’s designee to the TRPA, said SB271 passed by the 2011 Legislature authorizing possible withdrawal from TRPA was “essential” to jumpstarting negotiations and updating a regional plan for the first time since the late 1980s.
But he cautioned that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Sacramento by two environmental groups over the Regional Plan adopted in December “could be stopped in its tracks,” depending on how the court rules.
Additionally, the regional plan has yet to be fully implemented, and local governments now must come up with their own guidelines for overseeing some development activities.
“Looming over all of these … are the threat of litigation,” Robinson said.
SB229 would repeal a law passed in 2011 that paved the way for Nevada to leave TRPA and instead regulate environmental protections and development within its boundaries.
Nevada lawmakers blamed their California counterparts for favoring tough environmental standards that they said were hindering development and the economy.
TRPA in December approved an updated Regional Plan that gives local governments more control over some decisions.
Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas and sponsor of the latest measure, said last year’s law was successful in bringing all parties to the table and an updated plan. But leaving it in effect would be a mistake.
“For this collaboration to continue … it’s essential that Nevada recommit to the compact” by passing legislation this session repealing it, he said.
Kyle Davis with the Nevada Conservation League agreed, saying repeal of the withdrawal bill is “the top priority” of the state’s conservation community.
“I think lack of action by Nevada during this session will have a negative effect,” Davis said.
He said a perception that Nevada still wants to hold back would send “a pretty bad message” about its willingness to continue talks and work collaboratively.
Leo Drozdoff, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, reiterated Sandoval’s opposition to repeal — a sign committee chairman, Sen. Aaron Ford, D-Las Vegas, acknowledged was a hurdle for bill sponsors.
“We believe this bill is premature,” Drozdoff said, adding existing law sets a 2015 timeline for withdrawal and gives the governor the option to extend that deadline for another two years.
Business groups, including Tahoe resorts, also opposed the bill and urged the committee to allow more time, keeping the hammer of withdrawal in place.
But Parks disagreed.
“I think the important thing to bear in mind is time is of the essence,” he said. Given that Nevada lawmakers meet every two years, they won’t be able to consider repeal again until 2015.
“We’ll be at the eleventh hour,” he said.
Let’s break the TRPAZI.
Go for it Brian.
I’m a California resident and agree with Governor Sandoval and Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Director Drozdoff. Rather than it being essential that Nevada recommit to the compact I think it’s essential that California demonstrates their willingness to commit to the new RPU. A leopard doesn’t change their spots and only time will tell if there’s an actual change in the decades old practices of obstructionism by California that has so badly hindered development and the local economies. Waiting two years for the next legislative session to repeal SB271 is not a long time, and a lot will be learned in the interim.
California needs to prove themselves, not the other way around.
I have watched too many independent Business owners end up selling to corporate interests because they could not get approval to make even minor improvements to properties they had operated since the 50’s 60’s 70’s. I am not sure there is anyone left to fight for. But the Status Quo has not been good for anyone.
Just drive around the Lake, and up into the Mt Rose area. Nevada does care about what they have.
And given that we do not have Income tax, the Licensing for Non motorized boats in Tahoe makes sense to me. If for no other reason than to get people to rinse out the paddle boat after using it in The Truckee River before dropping it in Tahoe.
It could well be an issue
South shore somehow obstructing Douglas Co.’s wishes ? That’s hilarious. You must be new in town.
Bijou Bill:
This issue is not about the south shore obstructing Douglas County’s wishes, it’s about the state of California’s appointees to the TRPA Governing Board and the TRPA’s obstructionism through arcane rules and regulations that have been so cumbersome and costly that they’ve been a disincentive to making upgrades or new construction that would actually prove environmentally beneficial—especially related to South Lake Tahoe’s businesses. That’s why the new RPU and how it rolls out is of such importance.
If you’re unfamiliar with the TRPA then I would venture to guess that you must be new in town.
Governor Sandoval is absolutely correct in his reluctance to support SB229 which would repeal the 2011 withdrawal legislation. Only a single complaint made by Nevada, namely the Regional Plan Update, has been addressed thus far and the recent lawsuit by the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore against the RPU made it clear that the remaining issues are nowhere near settled. The view presented by the lawsuit is “we like the system the way it is and have no intention of changing it”. While I appreciate that many environmentalists continue to live on their hard fought victories of the past, I also believe it is time to take a serious look at where we are now and where we need to go to achieve our environmental goals for the future. If the environmental coalition’s vision of the future is to rid the basin of all the people and communities that exist and visit here – then say it and let’s have that debate. If they have a better solution to the downward economic and environmental spiral these communities find themselves in then let’s hear it. Either way, “No” is not good enough.
Tuffy:
Well said.