Nevada votes to pull out of TRPA; Sandoval ready to sign bill
Updated: 8:15am
By Anne Knowles
CARSON CITY – The legislation to withdraw Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency passed in the Assembly early Tuesday morning and is on its way to the desk of Gov. Brian Sandoval, who is expected to sign the bill into law.
The bill passed 28 to 14. Before the vote, Assemblymen Pat Hickey, R-Reno, and Kelly Kite, R-Minden, voiced their support of the legislation, while Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce, D-Las Vegas, and Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, both urged lawmakers to reject it.
The Nevada side of Lake Tahoe is pulling out of TRPA. Photo/LTN file
“The bill does not do away with any environmental protections and gives Nevada the voice it deserves,” Kite said.
“A lot has been said about giving Nevada a voice. But it now takes five Nevada votes to approve a project and (the bill) reduces it to four. I don’t see how that’s an increase in power,” Pierce said.
Pierce said the bill would likely have “enormous, long-reaching consequences that the people who proposed this bill do not begin to understand.”
Senate Bill 271 came up for a vote well past midnight, with less than half an hour left in the 2011 legislative session.
The bill calls for Nevada to pull out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Compact unless certain reforms, including a change in the TRPA voting structure, are enacted. An amendment to the bill was added that requires the Legislative Committee for the Review and Oversight of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Marlette Lake Water System to prepare a report on the TRPA and to assemble a delegation to meet with California legislators to negotiate changes at the agency. The amendment also gives the oversight committee the authority to submit a bill draft request to the 2013 legislative session preventing Nevada’s withdrawal from the Compact.
“We hope that passage of the bill will bring the two states to the table to seriously review policy differences on the future of Lake Tahoe,” TRPA Executive Director Joanne Marchetta said in a statement released at 8:10 this morning. “It’s important to note the final version of the bill took a more measured approach to bring policy issues to the fore and TRPA looks forward to working with Nevada lawmakers in the next few years to address the key points of the legislation.”
Here is how the lawmakers voted.
This is the text for SB271.
Can’t wait to see how the TRPA responds to this shot across the bow. Based on the TRPAs history of confronting people who challenge them, I don’t expect them to just make the changes Nevada wants.
Finally, local lawmakers got this one right. TRPA needs to be changed now it will be forced to do so. The color of my house, the sign on my business, and the size of my windows have nothing to do with the lake. The TRPA long since abandoned it’s mission and the lawmakers understand that.
You realize this only affects the Nevada side as the California side will remain a regime.
Does this mean back to the days of old with the NTRPA and the CTPRA?
Just a little wakeup call to the TRPA who has been acting like a petty HOA on steroids for DECADES. Stick to your mission and let homeowners build decks and paint their houses mauve if they want.
This really has little to do with what TRPA has been doing. It is just political maneuvering by NV to let California know to butt out of its affairs. I don’t think many people actually know what the bill says. It changes the voting structure barely, and requires the regional plan to recognize economic conditions. WOW, dramatic changes! lol…
The bill places the burden of proof that a project violates the Compact on the person filing suit. Currently the burden of proof is on TRPA to defend their approval of a project.
That completely changes the legal landscape in Tahoe.
TK, it did get watered down some in session. But I agree with Tahoe Steve, the TRPA is not working toward accomplishing its stated mission at all. It’s just a power mad little property association with Federal clout. They need to be reigned in.
You should have read the amended bill before you published this piece.