Opinion: Calif. water bond is good for Tahoe
By Julie Regan
As we count down the days until the Nov. 4 election, we are in full information overload. Mailboxes are exploding with proposition mailers. Measures seem to run from A to Z. It would be easy to say forget about it all. And that would be a big mistake. Here’s why.
Despite this being a non-presidential election cycle, there are some important initiatives on the ballot for Californians. And making your voice heard at the local and state levels is possible by casting your vote.
Julie Regan
Proposition 1, referred to as the California Water Bond, may seem of remote interest to us in Tahoe who are removed from the north versus south state water wars. But the bond is actually important to the Lake Tahoe Basin. The proposition includes grant funding for environmental restoration projects and direct funding for the California Tahoe Conservancy.
The subject of water is notoriously controversial in the American West. Mark Twain has scads of quotes about it including this one: “High and fine literature is wine, and mine is only water; but everybody likes water.”
We like it so much in fact that we are running out of it. State water supplies are in dire straits and Lake Tahoe just dipped below its natural rim. If the drought continues, Tahoe’s winter economy will be severely harmed and our shores will be threatened by new and existing invasive species. Add to these factors a changing climate and we could have the perfect storm for water quality and water quantity.
If passed by voters, Proposition 1 would authorize $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds for state water infrastructure and watershed restoration projects. While we won’t see a new line item on our property or income taxes for Proposition 1, the bonds would become part of California’s overall debt obligation. The bond is designed to invest heavily in the aging water infrastructure of the state and protect its many watersheds. A significant portion of the bond, $1.5 billion, is designated for protecting rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and watersheds.
Lake Tahoe could see the return of funding which has run out for environmental projects in the Lake Tahoe environmental improvement program (EIP) if Proposition 1 passes. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency leads the EIP in partnership with nearly 50 different implementing agencies including the Tahoe Conservancy and other California state agencies. The EIP, in combination with sound land use policies and other factors, has driven one of most significant improvements in the Tahoe environment in decades – the stabilization of lake clarity and an end of the precipitous decline that plagued us for decades. California water bond funds are essential to continue the state’s commitment to protecting Lake Tahoe and to continuing this progress.
Overall, the passage of the California Water Bond would mean additional dollars for investment in many environmental restoration projects for the Lake Tahoe Region which also drives infrastructure, construction, and other jobs in our local economy.
With the future of funding for environmental restoration and EIP projects uncertain, the California Water Bond would provide a secure funding source. Money received through this bond could also be used to leverage funding from other sources, including federal, and private.
As a local homeowner, I feel the pain of taxes and consider every new measure and proposition carefully. Please do the same. And please think of the future. Warren Buffet said it best: “Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”
Julie Regan is the chief of external affairs at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and works with the states of California and Nevada, along with the federal government, in her role in government relations.
So what’s good for the TRPA is good for all?
Did every one read the fine print, they also included the bullet train in at the end. That is how we have gotten so many things we did not want. SURPRISE
Don’t count on my vote for a yes.
to: from over the hill..
I read the fine print (gads!)…and fail to find the section that INcludes the bullet train. Please quote the section and/or subsection number(s).
thanks
The Northern California League of Cities recommends a no vote on Proposition One. The reasoning is there are too many extras that are not relevant to truly protecting our water, and no money for building reservoirs to store water.
I have had the good sense to vote Yes on Prop 1 for many of the reasons you mentioned. However; drinking water for TC PUD water is being used to make snow all last year in Homewood. This is inappropriate because our potable water is in danger, and if these roads are indeed soft coverage the snow making is not going back into the aquifers. TCPUD had nearly dry wells because of this excessive use.
HMR has promised it has all the water on their property, so they should use that not push through having the TCPUD take more water out of Lake Tahoe. TCPUD cannot afford to use our drinking water to make snow for HMR.
The new developments which are approved and proposed are far to large and will not meet the needs of TROA. Water is precious and so is Lake Tahoe. You can’t place more demands on water due to climate change.
TRPA seems to want it all, the water and development and increasing snow making for ski resorts. It won’t work in the end no matter how much money you can get from Prop 1.
Really, joanne? The first thing listed under the uses of funds for prop. 1 is $2.7 billion for new water storage including dams and projects that replenish groundwater. Its on page 7 under uses of funds I am voting no on this proposition because i think we have enough water storage areas, not enough water. There are already 10’s if not 100’s of almost empty reservoirs sitting waiting to collect water but there is no water. So how is building more reservoirs going to increae water availibity if there is no water flowing into these facilities? Its not. The environmental issues are also troublesome to me. Its not just about agriculture interests, or growing city interests, or making money. Maybe we need to look at the bigger picture, like do we need to keep building more golf courses that require more water? Do we need to build more mcmansions with huge lawns and too many toilets to flush, or huge developments when there are so many sitting empty? It is certainly a problematic thing, water issues, but I believe we need to look at other options IMHO
This is a bad bill that benefits a few at the expense of many.
Seems like the The Northern California League of Cities has a fact problem. Avoid their recommendations.
Maybe it is a no vote on the water bond. Too sketchy a plan and too much pork barrel potential.
It was hatched to (politically anyhow) take care of the water availability issues from an unplanned for drought. Which should have been expected based on known history.
By the time they get all the systems built, they just might not be needed.
Additionally, it is almost unbelievable that California, for the first time, is going to regulate (what is left of) its subsurface water resources. Most states with desert areas or large dry basins have been doing this for many years.
The water bond is now touted as a funding source for TRPA????
Of course TRPA believes it is the most important agency in California, and deserves all the money it can get.
Some facts seem to not be totally in favor of this.
The Tahoe Basin is a fraction of the state of California, and has about none of the problems that the water bond is supposed to be helping.
Tahoe does not have a significant shortage of water, although the forests are going to suffer in any climate change that involves less snowfall. Do all the small water districts like Tahoe City have issues? Of course, because they have not kept the utility systems in a situation that kept up with demand due to development.
The excess water in the Tahoe Basin drains into Nevada. I would expect the balance of the California population will NOT be all that happy to have the TRPA spending billions of dollars that basically do not benefit the needs for agricultural and municipal water in the parts of the state outside the Tahoe Basin. Where the real problems and suffering are.
As to the need for ski areas to make snow…although I am a skier, snow making never made any sense to me. A terrible energy waste. (can you spell carbon footprint?)
Snow making is very simply another version of taking a desert like LA or Las Vegas and using half the water in the state to do lawns and golf courses in places where they do not grow naturally. Stop it!
Ultimately it is an environmental disaster and therefore also an economic disaster.
Would you rather eat, play golf or ski when the competition for water gets to that point?
Ski areas should be located where snow falls in enough volume to ski on, not necessarily artificially made where the skiers can get to in 5 hours drive.
If climate change is as real and long lived as it looks, it is Bye-Bye Heavenly (and a few other ski resorts) in their current configuration, and maybe it does turn into Six Flags @ Tahoe, with roller coasters augmenting the zip lines. Whole towns in some places survive on tramways and lifts that boost tourists to the top of the highest terrain around just to get expensive snacks and look around.
Water Bond approval? Not something to do lightly, but I am sure it will pass.
Mrs Conner, please read the the voter information guide before you cite ignorant opinions from ignorant people.
Proposition 1 passed the House and the Senate with only 2 No votes… TWO!
It clearly says $2.7 Billion for Dams and Groundwater Storage.
Define dam:
dam noun 1. a barrier constructed to hold back water and raise its level, the resulting reservoir being used in the generation of electricity or as a water supply.
And while we are on the topic. Why is Groundwater storage better then a dam and reservoir… anybody… because groundwater does not have the evaporation losses of a reservoir.
Rock and Fish I believe what Joanne was tring to say was since it is being promotes as to help with Drought all money raise should go to help so that future droughts would not be as bad not just 2.7 billion.