Ugh…. this guy again.

I wonder how many people read these word ?? And articles ?? Kae ??
When the T Keys were first created , yes by trashing an important natural filter, just as Ski Run Marina was created many years ago, regulations didn’t really exist.
The Keys system of waterways were designed with a system of pumps to circulate the water and keep things clean.
Many years ago Solar Bee Co installed their water circulating devices in the T K M. Lagoon with quite amazing results.the millfoil died off because of the moving water
Coloums. I guess TKPOA is not interested in this solar powered harmless method of controlling the weeds.
I have seen the effects of the weed lawn mowers , that give the weeds a haircut and actually spread the weeds, by allowing tiny pieces to float free and spread the seeds .
The stagnant water is the issue.
25 cents worth from Steve.

Wonder what analysis has been done of reverting the waterways back to marsh will do to improve filtration of the largest river going into the lake? $100 million is a lot cheaper than maybe $2-$10 billion to remove most structures in the Keys. Also, if the best case scenario for water quality is to remove most Keys infrastructure, how much better will the original filter be than filling in the canals?

What if it takes around 100 years to revert most Keys development back to the natural filter?

By proposing to use controversial and toxic herbicides in its channels and endanger Lake Tahoe’s world famous purity, TKPOA has now started a chain of events that will create uncertainty, apprehension, and fear that will negatively impact sales and prices of Tahoe Keys homes. Dunderheads.

Good idea, x local. I have been trying to come up with an alternative to the idea proposed in the article. Yours is workable. Conbined with the possibility of solar-powered circulation pumps, this might be workable. Unfortunately, they already have wasted millions and millions to get a real cool pile of dirt just south of the airport. The work on that project alone has probably increased sediment loads in the Truckee by 200%. The plume is obvious from the air or from higher elevations.

So muuch crud flowing into the lake and yet so few care.
They are starting a big storm water drain project in my neighborood. More dirty street run off from leaking cars, animal waste over watered and fertilzed lawns, all running into the lake.A waste of water and the up and down clarity of the lake as well as our low lake level.
We will all have to reduce our water usage! Even a small amount of reduction at home helps.
Every drop counts! Old Long Skiis

Hello:

Once again, man’s attempt to “clarify” (in Tahoe’s ‘clarity’ sense, too) ends up complicating an issue instead of clearing it up. . the numbers thrown around here represent nothing other than the frustration at not being able to figure this out. . . not necessarily leading to an appropriate solution.

Simply put, Eurasian water milfoil’s seeds viably propagate for 100 years, meaning the first choice years ago, of dredging the channels (Ka-ching !), piling up the proceeds onto the bank (to dry out, as water is incredibly heavy & expensive to move -better done dry), then taking that load to Lockwood (130 + miles/round trip, also Ka-ching!) is & has been merely throwing money out-the-window. . .

In the alternative, Americans have learned to rely on “better living through chemistry” (a slogan aborted by DuPont decades ago for obvious problematic reasons), in turning quickly to a ‘hardware-shelf’ answer. . .& there probably isn’t any. . .

Whatever can (quickly) kill one thing will no doubt be able to still kill something else (perhaps slower, but in a cumulative [built-up] fashion). . .

In researching the worlds of bio- & phyto-remediation (which most agencies don’t do much of. . .), it is apparent that the only true answer is ‘pyrolysis’ (burning @ 1,800+ degrees F.) as that does not involve transport costs, nor does it continue the viability of propagation. . .

Would equipment costs offset transport costs (?) . . .
Most probable & likely. . .

Tahoe Keys needs to bank money they’re expending on non-productive solutions, to be able to offer a more permanent one that would also benefit the entire community surroundings: the 6-figure acreage of the Basin forests. . .

The fact that $ 400,000/yr in dredging costs may easily cover the mortgaged cost (over how long a period ?) of building what Mr. Urie proposes, I fail to see how ‘suspending the boats’ is supposed to solve the organic problem of growth (remembering that milfoil takes nutrients & oxygen that others need) is beyond his scope of “stepping up & healing the Lake”. . .

In short, he also does not offer any reasonable solution. . . but does offer a rather silly one that mitigates what (?)

Pyrolysis is part of that other stubborn side of Tahoe, that of finding ways to economically deal with forest restoration – in lieu of leaving multitudes of piles all around restoration sites (drying out as forest fire kindling). . . the biomass issue continually bandied about politically was actually to be part of our national energy policy, if we actually HAD a national energy policy, which we don’t. . .

The idea that by burning residues @ 1,800-2,000 degrees (F) is un-doable due to smoke was always ludricous, in that at that temperature range, there is actually NO smoke (smoke represents things not fully burned, which causes air problems), so yet another ‘political football’ gums up the works. . .

I started working on biomass issues in the mid-’90’s, which led to work with D.O.E.’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in conjunction with national U.S.F.S., BLM, & National Parks folks (the latter two as part of Interior, not USDA), as reducing catastrophic fire needs to reduce ‘flammables’, too. . .

The Keys folks (& social well-being, too) are stuck with a diffcult solution due to the intransigence of missing common sense, as if the old French maxim holds true: “the people get the government they deserve”. . .

[Perhaps seen as deserving each other (?) – happy face !)]

Here clarity of thought is more important than the clarity of the Lake. . .much more can be done for Tahoe that way…

Permaculture offers other alternatives, w/ soil restoration included, as an extremely important side benefit. .

Mr. Urie… I’m sure your intentions were well founded, but I struggled to find even a small fraction of truth or fact in your article. First, I was surprised that you were unaware that the Upper Truckee does not flow through the Keys as you state, but empties into Lake Tahoe via the Upper Truckee marsh. As you and others are unaware, the Keys changed less than half of the original marsh area and a good deal of potential wetland remains both to the east and west of the Keys.
Secondly, Roundup is used to kill broadleaf, terrestrial plants and is not used or approved for use to manage submerged aquatic plants such as water milfoil. To compare Roundup with the proposed use of EPA approved aquatic herbicides, proposed for use in the Keys, just makes no sense.
“A cesspool of chemicals”… really? May I suggest that you read up on the approved aquatic herbicides that are proposed and learn that they break down to inert inorganic compounds in a relative short time and are used in such low concentrations that they dissipate very quickly. In fact, one of the drawbacks of these herbicides is that they don’t stick around long enough to do a more complete job. These herbicides are essentially harmless to living things that aren’t green and make their food through the process of photosynthesis. Do you know any green people, because I don’t believe there are any living in the Keys?
And lastly, your proposal to close off the Keys and spend $100M for dry docks is where you lost your grasp of reality. First, the Keys would still be connected to the lake because the water has to go somewhere. Mother Nature would make new channels so that water could escape after flooding $150M worth of private and commercial property. And how many forklifts and launching stations would be needed to manage 1500 dry berths? You have complained in the past about regulatory agencies spending too much on the AIS program, but what about the waste of money on this totally unrealistic scheme?
The use of approved aquatic herbicides has been proven to be a safe, effective and economical method to manage invasive aquatic weeds over several decades and throughout the country and the world. Let’s try to be realistic and stick to the facts. If we work together, use scientific facts and common sense, we can enhance the water quality and help preserve our precious lake by effectively managing invasive aquatic weeds.

Mr.Sailermon

Very good article you have written. I think you are on the right track, if what you say is true,this should be started A.S.A.P.
Thank You

Flushing the Keys with Upper Truckee water seems so intuitive.

Mr. Sailermon, it’s good to see a thoughtful dialog on this important issue. I admit to using hyperbole to make my points, but I disagree with your criticisms.

1) I understand that the Upper Truckee flows directly into the lake. The Upper Truckee Marsh was originally 1,300 acres. The Tahoe Keys was built on 740 of those acres, eliminating more than half of the original marsh and its filtering capability. The Tahoe California Conservancy has acquired 600 acres and is restoring them to their natural habitat. It will certainly help filter the flow from the Upper Truckee River before the river water flows into the lake. It is seepage from the river and ground water that flows through the Keys and pushes the gunk from the Keys into the lake. I don’t propose to close off the Keys to the lake. I propose a reengineered outlet from the Keys Lagoon that will allow for better sediment settling and filtration of algae and pollutants before water from the lagoon and marina flows into the lake.

2) It wasn’t I who made the Roundup comparison to selectively killing dandelions — that was a speaker at last Tuesday’s presentation. But this is what the recently released Tahoe AIS Implementation Plan says about the proposed herbicides: A number of herbicides are commonly employed to treat Eurasian watermilfoil infestations, including but not limited to triclopyr, 2,4-D, fluridone, imazamox and endothall. Triclopyr, 15 fluridone and 2,4-D have been used in small-plot and whole-lake management programs to control Eurasian watermilfoil and in many instances have shown considerable selectively in removing watermilfoil with little to no impact on native plant communities.
Disadvantages of chemical control methods include restrictions to swimming, drinking water, and fishing and potential impacts to non-target plants. Additionally, the use of chemical controls may require extensive water quality monitoring that could increase overall program costs (TRPA 2014).
Herbicide treatment of curlyleaf pondweed using endothall or fluridone is effective at inhibiting turion production and can substantially reduce curlyleaf pondweed biomass and turion abundance during the initial 2- 3 years of treatment. Unfortunately less substantial reductions have been observed in subsequent years (i.e. >3yrs) of treatment. In another study, spring treatments of diquat or endothall were effective in reducing curlyleaf pondweed shoot and root biomass, as well as suppressing turion production. In both studies, while herbicide treatment reduced turion production, viable turions remained in the sediments up to 5 years post-treatment.

3) I’ve never complained about regulatory agencies spending too much money on worthwhile projects. I complained loudly about carpeting Emerald Bay with rubber mats and spending millions on an Asian clam control program, which we now all know didn’t work, was a total waste of money, and killed more native animals than clams.

4) I didn’t propose a plan, it’s an idea. I believe it’s a better idea than using toxic chemicals to kill weeds in the Keys, and it has the added value of also better filtering runoff into the lake and reducing other environmental issues. And I totally agree: “If we all work together, use scientific facts and common sense, we can enhance the water quality and help preserve the lake.”