Opinion: All is not well at Lake Tahoe
By Laurel Ames
On the shore of Sand Harbor Beach two weeks ago, state and federal lawmakers joined former Vice President Al Gore to celebrate modest improvements in Lake Tahoe’s clarity over the last two years and to laud the “cooperation” between California and Nevada toward ensuring the lake’s future.
Lost amid the pomp and circumstance of the 17th annual Lake Tahoe Summit, however, is the fact that due to recent actions by the very politicians who praised one another in Incline Village, Tahoe’s future is now murky at best.
The lake that was once the bluest in America now faces the very real prospect of becoming increasingly clouded by pollutants, fast spreading algae and aggressive water plants, with its spectacular mountain ridgelines and shoreline obstructed by new tall buildings, increased traffic and congestion around the lake.
That is because last December, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency approved an innocent-sounding “Regional Plan Update” that upended more than three decades of carefully restrained growth rates and strong environmental protections. The old approach will be replaced with this radical increase in crowded areas and an equally radical reduction of protection measures.
Under the new plan, the planning agency all but abandons its primary mission: protecting Lake Tahoe. At the same time, the plan allows TRPA to cede its authority for planning and permitting to the same local governments that failed to protect Tahoe in the past.
The Coalition to Protect Lake Tahoe is speaking out to expose the fact that the plan allows more polluted runoff, traffic, smog, pavement and taller buildings – removing the firewall of environmental protection that the standards were intended to provide.
Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore, represented by lawyers from Earthjustice, are legally challenging the new plan and opposing California Senate Bill 630, which would formalize TRPA’s new approach of placing economic desires on an equal footing with environmental protection, because we are determined to protect Lake Tahoe.
While the Sacramento Bee’s editorial “Regional pact, however imperfect, is best chance to keep Tahoe blue” (Aug. 25) acknowledged that the plan is “imperfect,” the Bee hinges its hopes for the lake’s future on implementation of the plan and more federal funding.
Yet even the best designed “implementation” and more federal funding can’t solve fundamental flaws such as the lack of proper monitoring and enforcement.
While the editorial rightly acknowledges the need to reverse deterioration of Lake Tahoe, there is no margin for error when it comes to absorbing any new increase in pollutants. The Regional Plan update is pushing the lake to its tipping point – the moment when pollutants overwhelm the ability of the lake to be restored.
Laurel Ames is conservation co-chair of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club and member of the Coalition to Protect Lake Tahoe.
Laurel, as a Sierra Club member, I have asked repeatedly for the Club to explain in detail what its complaints are related to the TRPA RPU and all I get is the sound bite. So let me try to decipher some of your statements.
You state
“The old approach will be replaced with this radical increase in crowded areas and an equally radical reduction of protection measures.”
OK so you’re saying you don’t like concentrated infill, TDR’s and the reduction of blight with environmental redevelopment in the outlying areas?
And all of this means a reduction of protection measures?
“Under the new plan, the planning agency all but abandons its primary mission: protecting Lake Tahoe.”
Great sound bite, it means you are not happy?
“At the same time, the plan allows TRPA to cede its authority for planning and permitting to the same local governments that failed to protect Tahoe in the past.”
So I think you’re talking about the use of the Area Plans, a more collaborative streamlined system of permit coordination where TRPA remains the overseer and final approver?
“the plan allows more polluted runoff, traffic, smog, pavement and taller buildings”
For the polluted runoff, I think you’re saying that environmental redevelopment, modern streets, modern gutter and drain and catchment systems will not better address polluted runoff than the antiquated systems we have now.
I understand more traffic means more visitors to Lake Tahoe – so we are saying that those that are here now got theirs and everyone else (including the American taxpayers that fund this beautiful place) can get lost?
Smog – you’re saying new bike and walking paths and better designed town centers won’t help ease the smog generated by all these new unwanted interlopers?
The taller buildings are bad because they disrupt sightlines even though they reduce pavement, reduce building footprints, and modernize landuse?
I am only guessing at what the Coalitions concerns are, so please educate me sans sound bite. My feeling is the Coalition members no longer have control over the process and are screaming NO. Laurel, NO wont cut it any more, we have serious problems and they need serious solutions -so lets work collaboratively and really protect this National treasure.
Ditto to Tuffy
Thank you for exposing this oft repeated mindless diatribe so well.
I am going to guess that Laurel is either younger than 40 or makes a living off of the environmental movement.
I will also guess that she feels that she is a good person because she is so right and fighting for the right cause.
Wake up!
Tuffy:
Thank you for a well-articulated post. The only addition I would like to make is the reminder that Nevada had every intention of pulling out of the bi-state TRPA if progress had not been made on the long overdue RPU (once referred to as “Pathway 2007”). Had that occurred there would have been no collaborative efforts between California and Nevada to protect Lake Tahoe. I absolutely believe that the Coalition members’ loss of control over the process is the impetus for their screaming “NO”, and agree that there must be collaborative efforts to find the solutions to protect Lake Tahoe since it is bordered by these two states. Working together sometimes means that compromises must be developed as opposed to the adolescent position that everything must be only “their way”.
Tuffy, well stated. Lauren Ames must stay with the same old song because it’s all she knows. Often those against something, only know how to be against. She has proven far off from reality and complete outside the majority in singing this song. No one who lives and works here today is interested in destroying the lake; it’s a ludicrous position to stand on. But churning up fire by trying to create an evil monster, calling it the evil that wants to destroy the lake! Oh no! Panic! We must fight! That’s all hype. Why would Laurel do this? Why stand alone in this fear mongering? Even the League has tried to distance themselves from her baloney. Why ? Because it’s all she knows. Describe the fear, the bully, the evil, incite the anger, and then please send in a donation so she can fight the evil monster some more. The evil, what is it today?
When they get together to write these kind of fear mongering pieces, I bet they actually decide which evil to put that will stir up the most anger, will it be government, developers, a building, maybe they’ll use the real bad evil words, high-rises, yeah, let use those. She counts on the fact that people won’t actually read the RPU and won’t go to meetings and hear the truth and won’t even read the area plans. They count on people’s not learning the facts for themselves, so they don’t have to be accurate, after all they can later claim, “oops” they forgot to read the page where people still have to follow TRPA regulations. Laurel Ames knows these facts but like others who are well practiced in the art of stirring up anger, false statements prove the glory is simply in the being against.
Laurel Ames is in her 70s and is a long time resident that wants no one else to have a home in Tahoe, She has hers and that all that matters.
She grew up here and has been a pain in the rear for over 45 years with her environmental issues and has cost thousands of locals millions of dollars with her holier than tho attitude about how Tahoe should be.
This type of “editorial’ may have been relevant in 1970, but seems to be inappropriate today. Excellent comments today.
“The old approach will be replaced with this radical increase in crowded areas and an equally radical reduction of protection measures.”
Well now somebody sure likes drama…
That is one of the worst parts of it. The motivation behind so many of these folks is the “I’ve got mine, the heck with the rest of you” attitude. The “public” lands that many want to “protect” are places THEY want to be allowed into, but all you unworthy troglodytes don’t belong there.
As Tuffy put it so well, if the taxpayers of the United States are putting gazillions into the care of this lake, they need to be able to access and enjoy it too.
Laurel,
Your opinion is actually the polar opposite of what is actually occurring. The new regional plan, as well current TRPA staff have clear sight on the original mission. What they have done, is come up with a much greater perspective of common sense in how they function. The redundancy that was in place prior to this new plan was ridiculous. End the obstructionist focus and jump on board, much more will be accomplished. The current environmental projects that are in progress as well as those completed have done more to protect the lake than your entire organization. Times have changed….we all want the environmental protection for this beautiful place that we call home. Believe it or not, that can happen and the economy can prosper if groups such as yours use common sense.
In regards to allowing “more polluted runoff” Caltrans has more than a dozen water quality control projects on highways around the lake either currently in construction or scheduled for construction in the next several years.
Nicely stated Tuffy. It does get tedious to read these diatribes that offer objections with no real alternative solutions. I’ve read the plan and believe it has a chance to address some of the issues such as land use restrictions that lock in these old run down motels that run along the 50 corridor. It is great to see the CalTrans work that will help address run-off issues and include the sidewalks that will encourage walkers and provide for safe passage along the busy roads. More bike trails will encourage visitors and locals to leave the cars behind. Yes, smaller footprints will lead to taller buildings, but with judicious application we can improve the sightlines.
Would also like more than a sound bite.
And do members of the Sierra Club really want funds going towards litigation or is it just a few that would rather take that route?
Isn’t the money better spent going to Area Plan meetings and voicing concerns there? Or keeping an eye on actual projects so they don’t approve super tall buildings?
Laurel, I hope that all the opinions above dont give you indigestion. Most of the people that post on this rag seem to have the same response no matter what the topic. You could be god requesting peace and love and they would find fault. Keep up the good work, endless pressure, endlessly applied.
How is it ok for this blog to have posted laurels street and location of where she lives. Thought this was actually monitored but by reading some of the abusive and threatening posts that get through, it seems anything can get written. What a shame. I bet some of the clients of these posts are glad to know where laurel lives. Now we need to know the name and location of old timer to even out the field
kelley said:
“Most of the people that post on this rag seem to have the same response no matter what the topic. You could be god requesting peace and love and they would find fault.”
kelley – While it is admirable for you to come to the defense of Ms. Ames your above generalization is not accurate and quite frankly it depicts you as pejorative and biased. Using your logic from said quote, one could extrapolate that everyone in The Coalition to Protect Lake Tahoe, Sierra Club, and Friends of the West Shore are all pejorative and biased.
LOL! That’s funny. Most of us here all have the same opinions? Do you READ this page?? Many of us are at each others’ throats on a regular basis. It’s rare that we agree on much of anything. Except maybe growing vegetables.
Right on, Dogula and 4-mer-USMC! ROFLMAO….
I think the RPU is wrong
but only time will tell
I to remember when you could drink out of the Lake, just stick your face in and drink
auto’s are not the problem
fertilizer is and we are all to blame
Go Dodgers Go. San Francisco went south.
Laurel Ames, Dogula, Pescado,
Laurel Ames, don’t let the negative comments here on Lake Tahoe News get to you. Some people around here will attack anyone for just about anything.
Dogula, ah yes, the vegetable connection. Nuff said!
Pescado, an “evasive” species is any fish that won’t take my baited hook or lure so the fish evades being caught and winding up on my dinner plate.
OLS
To be clear, I have nothing against Laurel, I don’t know her or what she is about. I am guessing she is no different than the Sierra Club members I do know who are well meaning and truly believe in their mission, right or wrong. I do, however, have a serious issue with the “Drum Beat” opinion piece she is presenting here. A piece like this, repeated over and over is intended to sway the opinion of the general public with generalities and scary rhetoric. It is presented as being the opinion of a reputable organization, but makes no attempt to educate the public or accurately represent their arguments. This is a real shame, because as Joby, Orale and other commenters have stated, wouldn’t the time, energy and finances of the “Coalition” be better spent arguing their case locally, and continuing to work collaboratively? Instead of acting as obstructionists, the Sierra Club can be a powerful voice for protection and enhancement of this special place, but only if it wants to be.
Tuffy,
Who do you think you’re kidding with the “Drum Beat” crapola? That’s textbook projection from the Douglas Co. developers and their sycophants.
I sincerely believe Ms. Ames letter is a push-back to the relentless “Hate gov’t, Hate enviros” dolts that parrot their regurgitated hate radio stupidity on cue to every article available here. I think that was what kelley was referring to in a previous post.
Laurel Ames is part of my generation of Tahoe homeowners that know what this town and Lake Tahoe would look like now without our ever vigilant effort to reject the “profit trumps all” mentality.
The slick, well crafted sales pitch by the RPU folks is nothing new, it is the never ending effort by the few to make profit regardless of the consequences. They even purchased the TRPA votes for this one. They hope to capitalize on the economic recession because the time is ripe, people are unhappy with the status quo and they see the open door to convince us to accept their schemes.
There are other outside the box sustainability ideas to reinvent the So. Shore besides this plan that make much more sense than the RPU.
Yes, Laurel Ames has been here “forever”. She grew up here and both as a resident and an environmental professional has seen the changes in the basin. Lake Tahoe has been a cash cow for many developers over the decades but, as she says, it has reached its tipping point. We have all visited over-developed resort communities where lakes are densely lined with homes and businesses and when we find the public access beach, its crowded and not at all what we had wanted for our vacation. We muse about what it might have been like years ago. Developers come and go, the messes they leave behind either live on or are remediated using taxpayer money. We have a chance to let Tahoe be as it is now—lots of lakefront development mixed with public beaches and forests. But if we push it further it will become one of those places that disappoint. Now, every new project looms larger than the ones before it in terms of impact on the already severely impacted ecosystem. Having been in dozens of TRPA and other meetings, I can tell you that unless the regulations and enforcement of those regulations is iron-clad, developers and their lawyers will indeed find a way to squeeze in at least one more ill-advised project that will make a couple of people rich. We have arrived at the bottom line. Let’s accept that and make the most of the remarkable environmental beauty entrusted to our stewardship.
BijouB & Hikeck, every post slammed Laurel Ames, not just Tuffy, read the list and the list that support the RPU, give me a break; the agreement is so far on the other side it’s not even a contest. She has to continue this montra because she has staked a claim in the lawsuit against the TRPA that she has to continue to repeat. She’ll sue every plan that gets approved until a judge finally tells her to tuck her tail and don’t come back, and it’ll happen. the TRPA has the authority to develop a plan, they did it with the most support, ever, the most public input, ever, the most agreement, ever. A judge won’t be telling the TRPA they don’t have that authority, it was granted to them in the compact. Until a judge says her case is null and void, she will continue to spew this in the hope something sticks. It won’t. This mantra and drum beating is simply job security for her.
In the meantime, can we get some stuff done?
Hikerchick, what i am getting from you message is that we should allow the built enviroment to continue to deteriorate, that you truely love the very dumpy old buildings that will never be updated as it will not be economicly feasable for the owners to do. NO ONE is talking about increasing the commercial coverage that now exist but rather they may change the use of them and transfer them to other areas. But I guess you never reailzed that the TRPA is still keeping control over commercial developement and would not allow movement of coverage unless it benefits the enviroment. Nor is any one talking about increasint tourism accomidation units(under this plan it is likely that these will decrease) or radicially increasling housing units. With out these increase how in the world do you forsee the lake being over run.
But I guess you are right lets keep things the same. I am sure that these old buildings are much much better for the enviroment than any newer building would be that would then be required to install newer and better BMPs.
Might I suggest that you are sounding a little bit like an Elitist, You live here and hike here but it seems that you dont want anyone else to hike here, this is for you.
Hey all, don’t underestimate the war chest and legal firepower behind laurel and the Sierra Club and her friends on West Shore. They are powerful and experienced people who are dead set to reduce commercial activity around the lake based on how much it has been screwed up by people looking to make $$. The feds in SF have often given the environment the benefit of the doubt. My guess is that this will be tied up in court for a while. No easy win here for either side especially with the anti Squaw efforts, seemingly loop road defeat by the city, and nothing very good (6 retail shops) coming out of the “hole” and all this backlash to city instituted paid parking limiting access for locals. Why would the fed court trust local decisions. They will move slow and probably find the testing far from perfect that the Sierra club is fighting.
How is it not OK for the Sierra Club to use lawyers, and it is OK for bankers, corporations, developers to lawyer up and do whatever they want?
Change a few words, and look what happens:
“They are powerful and experienced people who are dead set to profit from the lake and don’t care how much it has been screwed up by people looking to make $$”
You are missing the bigger picture.
There are places set aside where we can ignore the environment and sacrifice it as much as possible to make money. Places like Texas. But if you want nice things, you have to make sacrifices. Go do whatever you want in Texas. It is down wind and nowhere near our watershed.
There isn’t a ‘Texas Club’ suing for environmental protection because they don’t have anything worth protecting.
Inherited money is so much more noble than ‘new’ money that the lower classes actually work to earn.
/sarc
Wow. I have never seen so many of my posting buddies on the same side of a difficult issue. I must say that I believe that the Sierra Club is the worst thing to happen to the environment since they are a bunch of lawyers supported by people who think they are doing something good for the envoirnment. They only know how to say No and lawsuit rather than let’s find a solution. Shame on them and it is nice to see that they are getting exposed.