Letter: Tahoe not on cutting edge of environmental planning
To the community,
Although TRPA has spent a lot of time since 2012 touting messages about how “Lake Tahoe is often looked to as an area on the cutting edge of environmental planning” (e.g. 1, 2, 3), we beg to differ. This may have been the case decades ago, but other areas now surpass Lake Tahoe in terms of environmental protection, stormwater technology, and natural resource protection. Here are some examples of how our local planning isn’t quite ‘ahead of the game:’
-
California’s Water Board promotes natural infiltration instead of large stormwater facilities to help reduce polluted stormwater runoff, yet TRPA’s 2012 Regional Plan promotes more pavement in areas closest to Lake Tahoe and encourages large “areawide” stormwater facilities;
-
The Environmental Protection Agency encourages the elimination of curb and gutter systems, however extensive systems are being installed and/or planned around the Basin;
-
Caltrans reports and numerous traffic studies note increasing highway capacity leads to more traffic and driving, but the TRPA and transportation agencies are approving more;
-
Other local government regulations protect natural ridgelines, while Tahoe agencies are contemplating new ridgeline development; and
- Tahoe plans include more parking spaces as groups undertake efforts to remove them.
Making matters worse, the proposed 2015 Lake Tahoe Restoration Act would amend the TRPA Compact to weaken TRPA’s role in environmental protection by requiring TRPA to consider the (presumed) economic impacts of plan regulations. Keep in mind this is often what the corporations and large developers claim to be ‘economic.’ Their ideas of ‘economic’ (increasing their immediate [short-term] profits) are not based on truly helping our locally-owned/small businesses and communities, or long-term protection of Lake Tahoe. TRPA is currently the only agency with land use authority in the Lake Tahoe Basin charged with protecting Tahoe’s environment; the economics of the basin are already being monitored and prioritized by local entities (e.g. counties), along with numerous groups (e.g. Resort Associations). Notably, the original TRPA Compact was strengthened in 1980 because local governments eyeing tax dollars were approving projects that harmed Tahoe’s environment (although TRPA has, unfortunately, returned most project approval authority back to the counties, oversight is still required). The proposed Compact amendment will leave us with no land use authority that truly prioritizes Lake Tahoe’s environment.As depicted in our “Tahoe Regional Overgrowth” map, the North Tahoe region is already facing substantial development proposals that will bring more people, more cars, and more crowding. We are not opposed to new development, but believe it should complement and respect Lake Tahoe’s fragile environment and our unique communities — not overwhelm them. We will continue to keep you informed as these plans and projects proceed.
Sincerely,
Susan Gearhart, Friends of the West Shore president
Can you please provide your background, expertise, credentials on these issues so the readers can properly evaluate your comments otherwise this is just some opinions which are fine as far as it goes. Oh! I just remembered “the west shore is the best shore.”
Susan Gearhart, I completely agree with you on enviornmental planning. The developers have rolled up their sleeves and are rubbing their hands in glee as visions of huge profits roll around their greedy heads.
The TRPA will approve any large project if they are given enough money. There is no oversight.
Watch out West Shore and North Shore… the chainsaws and bulldozers are headed your way!!! OLS
OLS you have no idea what your talking about. Maybe you should talk to a developer both big and small and actually find out what the process and oversight is both from TRPA , a county and in the city.
So someone wants to build a storage shed in their backyard. They are denied by the TRPA… “too much ground coverage”. Someone else wants to build a large hotel on the lakeshore and build on enviornmently sensitive land or carve up a ridgeline for a campground and housing developement… and that’s okay?
Too each his own I guess. OLS
Good job Susan. Not to many people ever have the nerve to call this out. And you’re right. For the most part. Large infiltration systems are the only way to reduce runoff volumes especially in large watersheds that have curb and gutter. LID is the preferred means…. Your residential parcel BMPs have a tiny impact. Slapshot…, what does her credentials or background have to do with any of this. If anything ask for citations or references to support her claims, but if you know anything about this stuff you know she is right.
OLS your comment that TRPA will approve any project if given enough money is just flat wrong. You have no clue of the process or what it takes.
DBL i just want to know the perspective from which she writes. You are correct citations would be better. Susan can you provide citations for which your comments are based on. I think we all know TRPA is not cutting edge. So what it is what it is.
I think Slapshot’s comment reflects a healthy skepticism for anything on the Internet.
There are hundreds of cleverly named organizations, sometimes consisting of one or two committed individuals, pursuing a narrow agenda. The background of the author is one step in validating the article. Citations, of course, are another important step.
Yep, “you should know she is right”, ya you should.
Carl, perhaps we should separate the distinction of any project as OLS say’s. How about I rephrase that statement into the TRPA will grant approval for any large project by a large developer if they pay the proper fees and perform all the environmental studies to fit within the guidelines of the TRPA standards. I would like to know of one large project that has been turned down and has stayed down by the TRPA. I am not talking about small homeowners but larger than homeowner developers. The TRPA may have them tweak the project or scale it down (which gets changed the minute they get a permit) but see if you can name one large project that has been turned down at all phases and has stayed down. There are quite possibly a few but the percentage is very small. The TRPA is not the bad guys here as they need the mitigations, litigations and government money to survive but we are, for allowing them to do what they do. Please do not give the Loop road as an example because that is sneaking it’s way back in and it is not a done deal by any means. Thanks, Carl
Susan. A couple of points.
Natural water infiltration would be best, but we have major highways, roads, sub-divisions, roofs, parking lots now. So, when you have places like “Lake Wildwood” near Ski Run & 50, you have to build storm water facilities to control urban flooding.
The EPA does promote grassy swales (grassy ditches) to curbs and gutters in residential areas. But again, the curbs and gutters along Highway 50 are to control urban runoff.
Lake Tahoe is and has been overgrown with development for decades or more. Congress refused to grant National Park status long ago because it was deemed “overdeveloped.”
Basically, now we are in damage control.
Susan, few have taken more shots at TRPA in the last few years over their environmental policies and practices than me – I’m still trying to figure out where the $100 million a year that the TRPA Environmental Improvement Plan has received since 1998 went. But I do know that for years through lawsuits, The Friends of the West Shore held up the improvements and additions to the Homewood Ski Area – a design plan that received the National Ski Association’s 2013 Golden Eagle Environmental Award, the 2013 California Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award, and achieved a Gold certification in the Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design and when completed it will be California’s greenest ski resort.
Umm – those clickable links in the letter ARE cites. Check them out. This is from a recent Friends of the West Shore Newsletter. There are a lot of cites and references on their website too. http://www.friendswestshore.org.
What seems missing from big Tahoe developments is the use of passive energy so we don’t have to burn some kind of fuel to get the same results minus air pollution. Exceptions are the new Vail lodges and the new public school buildings. Skidding snow off of roofs to areas that are not pathways (resulting in more pollution to remove the snow) and water plants. Ect…….
Big developments done properly can actually reduce and or eliminate pollution of current infrastructure.
Ken,
You are most likely correct, through our ignorance and or apathy, the carnage goes on to often.
As a life long resident of the Tahoe area, I have seen a lot of bad come out of the TRPA. What started out as a good idea has morphed into a 7 headed Hydra. (Remember when they but a moratorium on all construction and whipped out the contracting industry?)So many rules have been added that do nothing to protect the quality of the lake, only adding more cost (and self serving funding for TRPA) Like any government agency, they are more interested in their fees they can collect then actually getting something done. If I were in Charge, I would have every one of their employees walk the Upper Truckee from Meyers to the lake to get first hand experience of how to improve that watershed and work upstream from there. Forcing homeowners to add BMP’s on houses that have been around for decades does nothing to improve the lake.
The underlying question is: where is the sustainable development (?) – the existing, the ‘Update’, & the ‘standards’ all placate incoming money as if there is no advantage to ‘alternative’ anything. . . The community acts with an ’80’s mindset: if only “we had more money”, we’ll then be all right; if only “we had more snow”, we’ll then be all right. . . which of course is the same community that’s been trying to conjure up a vision, as they don’t have one.
The “if onlys” will not cover the needs of the future, nor will the ‘same ol’, same ol’ arguments for or against. . .
The lady is fundamentally right, so the unacknowledged message is the hypocrisy of being seriously out-of-synch with coming necessities, while spending the taxpayers $$.
That in itself is not a political issue, just positioning wrong with dwindling funds – spend smarter, be smarter…
“The establishment will always support the status quo, long after the ‘quo’ has lost its’ status”. . .Peter Senge. . .
Some of the things done here are only exemplars of what not to do, as exemplary has well-functioning as its’ goal. . .
Cutting Edge Environmental Planning has noting to do with anything here at the Lake now – it’s all about money, greed and agency longevity.
Our local agencies are in bed with corporate developers and consultants because it sustains their existance with new purpose and fees. An example is TRPA slamming an insignificant residential allocation program – then promoting multiple large corporate developments right on or near the lake to attract more tourism ( and huge development fees for their agency ) Then there’s the Conservacncy hand feeding themselves by “inventing” a Land Assets Sales Program out of thin air to sell properties purchased with tax dollars originally for retirement, then reclassified for high capability commercial development. Both these agencies are contradicting their original environmental missions 180 degrees purely for longevity and profit. And along with that that they are collaborating ( conspiring ) behind closed doors with consultants and developers to circumvent the public’s will and right to decide their own future.
It has to stop – we need to boot these conspiring greedy opportunists out of this basin and completely clean house in these two agencies.
“Sustainability” and “collaboration” have become the two new great deceptive words which clearly mean “Opportunistic development designed behind closed doors”
Dave, Gary and Toxic. Have you read the UC Davis 2015 Clarity report? UC Davis says that Lake Tahoe Clarity has been on an improving curve since 1997.
From the UC Davis report: average depth clarity of Lake Tahoe in 2014 was 77.8 feet and in 1997 it was 64 feet.
I am sure that TRPA employees are aware of the Developments in Meyers, the Airport, Highway 50 and The Tahoe Keys that have destroyed the largest water inflow system to Lake Tahoe.
I agree that sustainable development and “cutting edge environmental planning” are elusive terms similar to describing the color blue to a blind person. But, Homo Sapiens have never been about “environmental planning” and certainly not cutting edge. Homo Sapiens are and have always been about changing the natural environment around them. For better or worse, that is what we do. We have always been developers, sometimes sustainable, sometimes not.
So, if you want to slay the Hydra, replace the establishment status-quo with another establishment status-quo or just clean house… that’s ok, but then what? And realize that no one person is in charge, it is going to have hashed out via a committee anyway.
Rock do you think 4 years of no winter has anything to do with lake clarity? Just ask’en.
Buck, did I not mention since 1997, which is a seventeen year span. Just say’en?
The best recorded Secchi reading in Lake Tahoe is 108 feet from the year 1873 by a John LaConte. It should be noted that the reading was after the Comstock Mining clearcuts.