Lawsuit filed to stop Washoe Meadows State Park from becoming golf course
By Kathryn Reed
A month after the California State Park and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to move Lake Tahoe Golf Course into Washoe Meadows State Park, a group has filed a lawsuit to prohibit that from happening.
“I would like people to know this has consequences for the entire state,” Lynne Paulson, who is part of Washoe Meadows Community, told Lake Tahoe News. “The Parks and Recreation Commission has done something that is unprecedented. They downgraded a property where they want to move the golf course. Usually they upgrade classifications to give more protection to land.”
Some cycling and hiking trails would become a golf course if the project continues. Photo/LTN file
Besides reclassifying state land, the Washoe Meadows Community – the group that filed the lawsuit Nov. 23 in Alameda County Superior Court – believes the California Environmental Quality Act has been violated.
Lake Tahoe News was notified of the lawsuit Sunday and therefore unable to immediately speak with State Parks officials.
The state acquired the 777 acres in Meyers in 1984 for $5 million following a lawsuit between developers and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
Part of that decision says, “The unique subject property is scientifically valuable, environmentally sensitive, vital to the maintenance of riparian habitat and to the maintenance of water quality in Lake Tahoe, and is, therefore, highly suitable for public acquisition in order to preserve and maintain these natural resource values ….”
Reclassification came about because water quality experts believe the Upper Truckee River must be reconfigured to near its original meander to best prevent sediment from reaching Lake Tahoe, as well as to restore meadows along the banks, and to create a more robust ecosystem.
In order to change the segment owned by State Parks the golf course on Lake Valley Recreation Area land must be touched. What the state commission approved in October was moving nine holes to what is now state park land and reclassifying it to a recreation area because a golf course cannot be built on park land.
Opponents, including those behind the lawsuit, don’t advocate for the golf course to go away. Instead, they support Alternative 3 – which would take the 18-hole course down to nine holes or convert it to an 18-hole executive course.
“We hope a better solution is brought up,” Paulson said. “We are in favor of Alternative 3. It’s the best balance of the extremes.”
Paulson and her group would welcome new ideas that have not been brought up or consideration of ones not part of the environmental documents.
This is not the first time the state has tried to reclassify land it owns. In 2010 part of Tolowa Dunes State Park near Crescent City was slated to become a state recreation area to accommodate waterfowl hunting. After several public workshops, the commission voted to keep all of the property a state park.
Washoe Park proponents believe if this South Shore park is downgraded, that it’s possible it will happen up and down the state.
The December hearings before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency on the river restoration/state park/golf course project have been moved to 2012, though specific dates have not been set.
More information about the Upper Truckee River restoration project is online.
We don’t have the money. Leave it alone. It is obvious that this is a trick that will force the Golf Course operator to close up shop. Stop this madness.
It’s a golf course, Paulson. Chill out! And it doesn’t effect the whole State. Go find another park to play at.
Real simple. Leave the golf course alone and work around it. Don’t force the golf course to close by downsizing it to nine holes or executive, thereby losing a 6 million dollars economic engine. Too much money has already been spent on planning and meetings.
Doesn’t our local chamber of commerce realize supporting alternate #2 may result in the closing of the entire course and the lose of many jobs?
Earl the project will result in a net environmental benefit by restoring wetlands that are now a golf course. The courts are more than likely going to rule in favor of this project. I dont think anyone should run away from these groups that file lawsuits on good projects. I do hope the loser’s have to pay the winner’s legal fees.
The majority of Washoe Meadows Community are your friends, your neighbors, support your businesses, support your organizations, your charitable groups. They donate their time and their money when the community has needed it most. The community, business leaders, and local political leaders should be screaming that these types of projects do no harm, to the environment, wildlife, and most importantly to residents. This project negatively impacts the very reason that some have chosen to live where they live, for the peace a forest has to offer. It cuts off the surrounding neighborhoods from river access for those who want easy access for walking, biking, and equestrian uses. This group has worked proactively for 5 years to develop alternatives so that no jobs are lost, no residents are hurt, and for protection of the environment. The community should take some time to listen.
Ron, I dont mind finding a new hiking and biking trail in order to get the golf course out of a wetland and get it moved up to upland areas. Then reattaching the river to the wetland so that it can filter sediment during spring runoff. This suit is about some peoples hiking trail. It is not about the environment. I do live in that area and this group does not represent me or my family.
Unless one has been actively involved by such things as going to meetings, it would be difficult for anyone to appreciate the complexity of this project.
The key point, in my opinion, is that the restoration of the river as mandated by Lahontan is intimately tied to relocation of the golf course. They should have been two separate projects from the beginning.
The CSP will tell you that they cannot be separated, which is just not true. Many viable suggestions were presented that would preserve the 18-hole regulation golf course along with complete river restoration without moving a single hole. These suggestions were not disputed by the CSP with evidence, but simply ignored.
These suggestions came from community members, politicians and scientists (some paid) alike. They had (have) great potential to satisfy ALL parties, but the CSP refuses to entertain any option other than Alternative 2.
Humor me and suppose the goal is to restore the river and stimulate economic development in South Lake Tahoe, and especially downtown Meyers. Some key points worth mentioning:
1. Alternative 2 is not sustainable.
2. Alternative 2 will not create permanent jobs. It will create temporary outsourced contracting for the golf course relocation.
3. Alternative 2 does not quantify how much sediment into Lake Tahoe will be reduced after the river restoration. Look at historical pictures on the UNR website: http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/specoll/ltac1.html
As shown in the aerial photographs, the sediment into Lake Tahoe from the Upper Truckee River is substantially less now than it was in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, to the present. The CSP only shows a current cropped picture in their brochures and other materials to intentionally misrepresent the urgency of such a project. Much of the information disseminated by the CSP is in fact propaganda.
4. River restoration in a heavy snowfall season may not be sustainable, as the path of least resistance will dictate the course, nullifying the work. This year, Cove East was re-routed “naturally” due to the heavy run-off.
5. Relocation of the golf course will increase golf fees. At the TRPA meeting on 10/23/10, the operator of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course did not deny that the fees could in fact rise to the same cost as Edgewood if the money was spent on the relocation. This is not in line with the $5-10 fee increase as suggested by CSP. A cost increase of this magnitude would in fact drive golfers away.
6. Last year, golf fees were reduced to entice golfers to the Lake Tahoe Golf Course.
7. Golf is on the decline world wide.
8. Goldman-Sach’s, the owner of American Golf, which is the concessionaire for the Lake Tahoe Golf Course, used to own 300 golf courses world-wide. They are now down to 90 due to the decline in golf, not the economy.
9. Edgewood Golf Course, a privately owned entity, is moving ahead with a major renovation to make their 5-Star PGA Golf course on the Lake even more inviting. It is highly unlikely that there could be any reconfiguration at the Lake Tahoe Golf Course that would entice the players that patronize Edgewood (and all the surrounding amenities at Stateline) to come to their course in Meyers. Since Edgewood is private, they are not looking for any outside funding, therefore there will likely not be any obstacles for them to move forward with the project.
The best strategy would be to wipe the slate clean and start over. Only this time entertain some suggestions (in addition to Alternative 2) from the community members and professionals from the scientific communities that have submitted their studies, observations, and recommendations.
Four-season recreational use of the park (and there are many), with concessionaires to support these activities, parking fees, good advertising, promoting, and sinage, could catapult Meyers into a tourist destination and bring even more revenue to the CSP than could a golf course alone. A golf course alone has too much potential to become another “Hole in the Ground.”
In this line of thinking, let’s consider current demographics. Edgewood is appealing to a certain echelon of clientele. It is doubtful that those individuals would go to Meyers for any reason. On the other hand, low-impact outdoor recreation is on the rise with the mass majority of people, especially families with children. This is the group that perhaps should be targeted, and not the elite few that support Edgewood. Simple marketing. It can be done.
No matter what side of the issue you are on, the disfavor and divisiveness that Alternative 2 has spurned in this community will lead to nothing but failure for everyone. It is a poorly conceived plan without regard to future ramifications.
South Lake Tahoe has been my home for 25-years. In that time I have seen too many well-intentioned projects be implemented with limited or no foresight that led to complete failure with added negative consequences to many community members and businesses. It seems that this same path to destruction is being taken hastily by the CSP for fear of loosing whatever revenue that can be held on to from the golf course, instead of thinking of what could actually be done to produce more revenue from the use of the WMSP. I truly believe a second hole in the ground will be the result if Alternative 2 is chosen.
John, I also live in the area and have walked in the park several thousand times over 15 years. I have also attended almost every public meeting for 5 years. No group has supported river restoration more than Washoe Meadows Community. The differences lie in how it is accomplished.
To get some historical perspective of the different sides of the issue I refer you to TRPA, APC, and GB Meeting Notes September 13 and 27 2006. There is a great deal more at stake than hiking trails.
Ron, not really. I also attended the meetings. The bottom line is your group is fighting this because of a personal bias for a couple trails. Look at the post above about JP Morgan being the owner of the concession. So What? This has always been about and is still about a small group of people who feel like they have person ownership over that public land.
Here is a fact Ron, that river has been channelized, mined and cannot meander. The river cannot flood. The proposed project will get the golf course out of the way and will reattach the river to the flood plain. That type of restoration has been completed all over the West and it is hugely successful. It not only strains sediment from reaching the lake but it is also natural flood control.
After deciding to restore a destroyed wetland the only other question becomes what to do with the golf course. That golf course is a huge part of the community. It is the alternative to Edgewood and most locals cannot affort Edgewood. Look again at Miss Mort’s post. She is trying to tell people that the price is going to rise to Edgewood levels. It will not because the concessionare is not going to pay for the move. She also talks about the national decline in golf to hide what is happening Washoe Meadows. The course is well supported and very profitable and provides a great place for locals to play golf. So keeping a 18 hole course makes sense. So if thats the case, then move it up to upland. That is exactly what is proposed.
Look, I dont play golf. But I hate all of the misinformation your group is using to try to prevent river restoration so a few people can have privatized public land.
Now I need to go find my migrating wildebeast. I heard he was having trouble getting across the golf course.
John,
1. I am not a member of Washoe Meadows Community; first false assumption.
2. Goldman-Sach’s is of relevance in that they have no investment in the community per se. It will either be a financial boon or they pull out without regard to local consequences.
3. The fact that the existing golf course is closer to Hwy 50 and that road pollution is the number one cause of loss of lake clarity should in itself bring up the issue that moving it away from Hwy 50 would not be beneficial to the ecosystem.
4. The statement about the golf course fees rising was not a suggestion, but fact from the TRPA meeting on 10/23/10 made by the operator of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course himself. Yes, another fact, as you pointed out, is that the relocation in regard to the cutting of trees and the restoration of the river would be paid for by the taxpayer’s, i.e. you and me. The golf course operator would be responsible for new irrigation systems, golf cart paths and the greens. The operator said they would “bid” on a new concession, but no agreement has been reached or signed. In addition, the cost of the the complete golf course reconfiguration would have to be recouped by Lake Tahoe Golf Course BEFORE they pay a penny to the CSP. Estimates have been a minimum of 10-years.
4. Golf is on the decline, but I don’t know what you mean by “trying to hide” what is going on in WMSP. Most of the golfers who attended meetings and spoke said they liked the course the way it is and to leave it alone. A couple who were for the reconfiguration qualified it with “if it was to go to a 9-hole or 18-hole executive course.” If left alone, they would also be happy. Further, ALL said that if the fees rose significantly, they would golf in the valley; thus the unforeseen consequences…no golf course and no revenue. Nothing to hide, only misinterpretation and potentially another hole in the ground.
5. I am not for Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. I am for a common sense win-win-win Alternative, which has been proposed. This proposal would keep the 18-holes of regulation golf (not an executive course), restore the river, and revitalize downtown Meyers. Time will tell if it is received with any consideration.
In the recent Tahoe Mountain News article by Jeff Munson (11/11), the Washoe Meadows Community members were labeled “detractors,” who want the park for their own personal playground. This was irresponsible journalism at its best for two reasons.
First, it is inaccurate, but in line with the picture the CSP is trying to paint.
Second, when the article was published, it was thought
that the TRPA Governing Board Meeting for the certification of the EIR/EIS for Alternative 2 was to be held on December 7th, not giving WMC or anyone against Alternative 2 a chance to respond. Now that it has been postponed to sometime in 2012, dates not set yet, the opposition is rightfully voicing their opinions.
I was asked recently after discussing options for WMSP with a local politician if I wanted to keep people out of the park? My response was an emphatic “no!” The park is public land and should be used by all that want to use it. I know this is the sentiment of those in Washoe Meadows Community as well.
Having lived adjacent to the park for 25-years, my experience is that the majority of people who enjoy nature at its best are also the best stewards of the land and want to care for it and preserve it for future generations. Welcome one and all.
So to summarize, it would be good if the local media would present an accurate account of both sides of the issue. Sorry Taylor, but you have lost my respect and all future business due to Jeff Munson’s article. It would also be nice to see the community and the CSP benefit from WMSP as well as a revitalization of downtown Meyers. Relocation of the golf course impedes these goals.
But they can build the most expensive, ugly, view blocking bridge on earth because it’s for bicycles.
John, we both want the river restored. You want the golf course in the state park. I would like to see easy open access for everyone. So, who wants ” privatized public land.” I saw your migrating wildebeest. He went the way of the upper truckee beaver, killed as an invasive species.
Sunriser2, you are mistaken. The bridge was designed for the railroad to be built
next year from Stateline to Sacramento.
Its use for bicycles is only incedental.
The tunnel under Echo Summit is now halfway to completion. It is a secret
project funded by the CIA to allow trains to operate in the winter and an
additional pipeline will begin the draining of Lake Tahoe to supply water to southern California.
I would believe the CIA is involved before I would believe this project to be about water quality or lake clarity. These stream realignments are proven to be detrimental but they are the carrot to ram through realignments for God knows what reason. If realignment benefitted trout creek, where is the proof, it does not exist because realignment as a water quality effort is unproven.
Man it is hard to believe that this has lead to this. I am sure the state parks knew they were going to be sued so no big deal, whatever. Hope the WMC has some large piggy banks.
I have attended several of the meetings/tours/workshops you name it the parks has put on, and am also a neighbor to the park. There is no transparency in what they have done or information they have divulged in all this effort. All the science and reports are legitimate in my opinion.
All the information is on the projects website: http://www.restoreupppertruckee.net
Not being a community group member and throwing out statements likes this sure seems suspicious to me.
“I was asked recently after discussing options for WMSP with a local politician if I wanted to keep people out of the park? My response was an emphatic “no!” The park is public land and should be used by all that want to use it. I know this is the sentiment of those in Washoe Meadows Community as well.”
And also, how would this project not achieve all the goals you state it would impede?
“it would also be nice to see the community and the CSP benefit from WMSP as well as a revitalization of downtown Meyers. Relocation of the golf course impedes these goals.”
Because you lose some hiking trails?
This WMC group has not had any sounds science or surveys to back up the propaganda they are spewing.
This is not the only restoration project being completed on the Upper Truckee. This is an important piece to this reduction of sediment and habitat improvement with improved recreational access.
Yes I want to walk along that section of the river and see birds and fish.
How is this not a compromise?
Like Sunset reach on the UTR, this level of uncertain engineering is a guesstimate and ends up costing way more money than intended and requiring long term management to ensure the protection of the investment. In this case, disrupting currently preserved land, altering and constructing a new river, and creating massive temporary impacts to the lake. Will it have benefits 20 years from now? Maybe, maybe not… The science is showing the benefit is in the stream bank stabilization, so what justifies spending millions creating a new river. So, I ask, what is the ultimate river specialist? Mother Nature, time, beavers, entrix consulting, Burdick excavation, State Parks staff…? We know things heal over time, the flooding capacity may be subpar, but the system will find a way. Potential benefits could come from this if there were no golf course, but the golf course is not going anywhere, so why waste all our time and money? There are other areas in the basin we can focus tons of money… Protect the banks of the stream from erosion just as the TMDL says needs to be done. Remember the TMDL says only 4% of the loss of lake clarity is coming from streambank erosion, so what justifies this massive investment in a meandering river for such little benefit.
the investment in a menadering stream that functions and is not engineered is The habitat value the birds, beavers, deer, bears, etc, etc, etc… will have. Oh, one more, what about the people that may enjoy walking, fishing, kayaking, swimming in a natural stream, not one that has boulders, logs, concrete for its bed and banks?
We’ll throw in water quality as the icing since so many people are no down playing that as significant in the clarity issues of the lake.
Why not save trails that have been used for decades. It costs nothing. We spend millions on bike trails. Those who just want to walk we push aside. No empathy in this community?
Mr. Man, I have to agree. I dont have a camel in the race really. I mean this is my back yard, but when I saw all of the statements like interupting migration corridors I turned against community group. I want an honest debate. Not made up stuff that is just environmentalist talking points.
Ron, the point is that if the river can flood then the sediment that runs into the river from the roads can be filtered out. Yes, these projects have gone poorly and they have gone very well. I guess time will tell. I do think the lawsuit proponents should pay Parks attorneys if they lose. And vice versa.
I am not going to get into the Rocky Mountain beavers debate. I have a wild horse to turn into glue tonight.
Using the river to filter sediment from the road is preposterous… Rivers flood for maybe a week or two every few years. Stormwater is introduced to the river every storm.. This road water requires a whole seperate level of treatment of which you would not treat with meadow over banking…
If you want to see what the realigned river will look like when complete, visit the cities project that was completed last month. Completely devoid of vegetation or wildlife. It’s the reach next to the airport. I bet it will take a decade before the vegetation comes back but will never be as thriving as the reach downstream of elks club. Now us a nice time to make these observations so you know what we will get from these projects. Do not expect anything more
I like Miss Mort’s organizational skills so much I think I’ll follow her format.
1. I live adjacent to the park.
2. I am not a member of WMC
3. I noticed that the numerous other Upper Truckee River restoration projects have had no lawsuits or community uprising. Is this because restoration doesn’t work? Or is it because those projects didn’t involve golf?
4. The WMC has no independent studies to back up their accusations. If they believe that Parks has falsified the studies: do your own. Any first-year hydrology student could show you how to survey a river, calculate flow and sediment load. Get a pair a waders and get to work! Which brings me to:
5. Someone has been vandalising the park by writing “Stop Golf” on down trees with permanent marker. Really? Is that anyway to treat our public land?
Mr. Man,
As a member of the community of South Lake Tahoe, I have chosen to become involved in community activities.
In regard to the relocation of the golf course, I have personally contacted local and state politicians on my own and have conveyed to you accurate information.
Synthesize it as you choose.
Judy,
I agree. Vandalism for any reason should not be tolerated.
I moved from the city to a tahoe paradise neighborhood. I walk out my front door, down my street to the park for a pleasant walk down to the river. Yes I am one of those evil people who use the park for which it was intended. What do I have to look forward to. Walk out my front door, get into my car, drive 3 miles, park, and stroll alongside a golf course void of anything natural. I then go home an read how Tahoe is becoming “green” and is encouraging ecotourism. My move was just one more mistake in life. This project and its hypocrisy is the final nail in the coffin. We are headed to a small town in Colorado. It is strange that the only group which attempts to save a state park is made out to be the villain. WMC I applaud your efforts but realize you are doomed to failure.
Well said Chas. There are plenty of destinations with popular golf courses and ski areas (and yes a convention center). But Lake Tahoe is one of the most spectacular lakes in the world and we seem determined to marginalize it. Block the lakeview, more homes and commercial projects, more piers and golf courses, MONEY MONEY MONEY. Instead of figuring out how to best preserve and protect our best asset, every decision is a knee jerk decision for more MONEY MONEY MONEY. At the same time the LTVA, the Chamber and the City Council churn out P.R. about how green and eco-friendly Tahoe is (“Don’t look at that! Look over here at this bike path! Look at this infiltration trench!”) Pretty pathetic.
Funny how in (what 15 yrs?) the local monthly paper has gone from a community-minded publication to just another chamber of commerce mouthpiece.
Look, we all know that the goal here is for the golf course to be closed. That is it. Regulate the monster capitalists out of the Tahoe Basin to save it for lingering walks by the river. Nonsense.
For five years of public hearings, 99% of those who made comments never suggested closing the golf course and that includes WMC. As Miss Mort noted, early on there were many suggestions to keep both the state park and the 18 hole golf course. State parks ignored all and was single minded on alt 2. Would it not be nice for the community to stand up with one voice and say find a way to keep the course and the state park and maintain recreational opportunities for all.