Opinion: Cooperation key to saving Lake Tahoe
By Clem Shute
The unanimous passage of SB630 by the California Legislature marks the end of an era of controversy and the beginning of an era of renewed cooperation between California and Nevada. The passage of this bill means a renewed commitment by the two states to cooperate in achieving the environmental thresholds established by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
It also ends the possibility that the 45-year-old agreement between the states to work together on Tahoe issues would cease. And, it gives the states’ support to TRPA in going forward with the recently adopted Regional Plan update.
How did we get here? Frustration over the inability of TRPA to update its Regional Plan manifested itself in the form of legislation passed in Nevada to withdraw from the Compact due in large part to the perceived gridlock in getting anything done. This frustration further showed when in August 2011 three United States senators and the two governors gave TRPA a deadline of December 2012 in which to update a plan which had remained largely unchanged since 1987.
Clem Shute
In fairness to TRPA, efforts to update the plan had been ongoing for many years but a lack of consensus prevented action. In response to the deadline established by our elected leaders, TRPA began an intense effort to update the plan. A committee of the Governing Board held more than 15 hearings on possible provisions of an updated plan. Consensus was reached on some 90 percent of the issues but serious disagreements continued on major environmental policies. The two states stepped in and created a bi-state consultation process which was able to close the gaps and bring consensus for the updated plan.
It is important, particularly to me, that this consultation process resulted in increased environmental protections for Lake Tahoe without increasing the amount of development allowed. The Regional Plan update was adopted by the TRPA Governing Board on Dec. 12, 2012.
Both states have recognized the significance of the updated plan. They worked to remove obstacles to implementation of the new plan and set a course for renewed cooperation. Nevada repealed its law which threatened withdrawal from the Compact and California’s SB630 carries forth the agreement between the states to support TRPA’s efforts to improve the environment at Lake Tahoe.
However, we cannot break out the Champagne yet. A fly in the ointment in the form of a legal challenge by the Sierra Club must be overcome. That organization has done much to protect the environment over the decades. But, due to apparent misunderstandings on its part of what is in the plan, coupled with an attitude of full opposition unless it gets all of what it wants, the lawsuit is an obstacle to complete implementation of the Tahoe plan. I have urged the Sierra Club and anyone interested to look at the facts.
The strict growth controls that have been in effect since 1987 remain. Science has shown us that small particles released from pavement, old buildings and highways are a large cause for loss of lake clarity. The new plan emphasizes replacement of that infrastructure thereby improving lake clarity. Some 1,200 parcels are expected to be protected or restored. The number of new homes that can be built is reduced from 300 per year to 130. The plan will reduce reliance on the automobile and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by California’s SB375. There is an emphasis on removing development from environmentally sensitive areas. The new plan is not perfect but will achieve the environmental thresholds established by TRPA. It deserves the unfettered chance to be implemented without the cloud of litigation.
Now that Nevada and California have made an unqualified commitment to help TRPA, we at TRPA are poised to work together toward the common goal of a Lake Tahoe that remains as Mark Twain observed, “the fairest picture the whole Earth affords.”
Clem Shute is an appointee of California Gov. Jerry Brown to the TRPA Governing Board, was chair of the Regional Plan Update Committee, and is current chair of the Regional Plan Implementation Committee.
Clem, Your TRPA agency is nothing more than a phony self sustaining government agency writing it’s own ticket to assure continued existance.
This is evidenced by the huge coroprate high density recreational development built into the RPU. Your trade-off to appear “environmental” is the shut-down of residential development which has insignificant impact on Lake Tahoe. This decision furthers the economic deacy of a local economy – which you couldn’t care less about.
You and your agency care about one thing – where’s the money coming from to pay for TRPA’s inflated goverment salaries and administration ? It’s coming from huge corporate development and mitigation fees.
If you really cared about this Lake you wouldn’t have agreed to pave the path for huge corporate acreage development that will surely enhance even more tourist accomodations, infrastructure and congestion to Tahoe each year.
RIGHT JOHN – – All government agencies do this self sustaining thing. They all claim to be providing a needed service.
John A. Makes a living building houses so he is mad that we cannot continue new construction unabated in Tahoe. Yawnnn…
Whether John builds houses or not he sure has my support. And he’s right….
John Says – Yea right Bud- I used to build homes, but regardless the local economy suffers from TRPA decisions and especially for such obviously self-sustaining motives.
Maybe you’ve been lucky enough to have been awarded a retirement to allow you to condemn others who need to continue to work.
I built a lot of homes – and if one of them was in your neighborhood it likely increased the value of your home. You should thank me for that.
how do “old buildings” contribute to water quality issues?
Why is it always all about “cooperation” between CA & NV (?) – what about “participation” on the part of those who live here and want to make a living here (?). They sometimes seem to be held hostage while the “States” (or is it the “Feds” ?) figure out what Tahoe should look like – according to ‘them’ (whoever that is), who most likely don’t live here, know of, or care about what it takes.
As the insistence of a couple of entirely new “zoning” categories exist, are they also now required to eliminate the “large causes” of lake clarity: “pavement”, “old buildings” and “highways” – in their march to more prosperous times ?
Especially since new ‘highways’ & ‘pavement’ are to replace them ? With a reduced number of buildings and people to use what’s left ?
These are ‘non-sequiturs’ that only prove the specious nature of the complaints. . . removing the O.K. of 170 building permits that reduce VMT’s by only 10,000 miles (!) is hardly an economic boost, or even much of a reduction, either. . .given the loss of employee-base and overall population – they’re more like tokens on the way to the necessary approval date. . .
Mr. Shute reasons that a “fly-in-the-ointment” is the reason the plan may not be implemented (noting he is its’ Chairman) – that ‘consensus’ is what will get it done (an “unfettered chance”, he says).
I submit that a more balanced and effective Plan will be what gets it done, not one that has to be under the utmost control of TRPA, regardless of its’ inherent quality, and in spite of the many opinions gathered . . .
Clem, I admit that due to your resume as an environmental attorney, I was worried when you were appointed to the TRPA Board. However, I’ve strongly agreed with everything you’ve had to say since. I completely agree with your Opinion; keep up the good work.
John A – FYI there are already too many houses in the Tahoe Basin. We have to tear a lot of them down, not build more. The RPU creates incentives to tear houses (and motels) down and move that development into town centers; thereby improving the environment and the economy.
Westshoreskier – you’re truly mistaken if you think the large acreage development on the table in the RPU is better than a few scattered new homes around the basin each year. New homes have new BMP’s and so many inspections for ejnvironmental compliance that they represent nothing of significance in damage to Tahoe in comparison to the major contributors. ( Highways, Commercial Development, etc )
You should look into the RPU for the Vail and Edgewood developments – then ask yourself how are those projects going to do anyhting other than bring thousands more visitors,pollution,infrastructure and congestion to Tahoe each year ….
TRPA should butt-out of the business of telling us when to drop everything else and start remodeling old homes.