THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Lahontan: Lake clarity at any cost, no matter what


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

More than one billion dollars — $1,000,000,000 – is what has been spent on the environmental improvement program in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The goal is to increase lake clarity.

Clarity is not declining as rapidly as it once was, but it’s still declining each year. That makes the programs winners, according to Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control board members and staff.

And Executive Director Harold Singer readily admitted at the Dec. 6 Lahontan board meeting that nothing his agency has made entities do can definitively be said to have improved that clarity.

El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago, center, addresses the Lahontan board Dec. 6 while her board stands next to her. Photo/Kathryn Reed

He said he’s often asked by money suppliers – the federal government in particular – what they are getting for their money. He points to projects.

“We’ve never been able to quantify those actions as they relate to water quality,” Singer said.

The EIP program started after then-President Bill Clinton’s visit to Lake Tahoe in 1997 – hardly the Dark Ages when it comes to scientific know-how.

It is just now that Lahontan believes it has developed the tools to quantify how projects impact lake clarity.

On Tuesday, the Lahontan board on a 5-0 vote (Keith Dyas was absent and three board positions remain vacant) agreed to approve the stormwater-urban runoff permit system for South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County and Placer County.

The board didn’t see any point in extending the process — despite the passionate pleas of the three jurisdictions. While in some ways the process has been lengthy and years in the making, the comment period closed Nov. 30 — less than a week before the board voted.

It’s through the permitting process that Lahontan will monitor projects on the California side of the basin.

But it was also said by board member Amy Horne to the three jurisdictions, “If in 2016 we don’t see the level of improvement we expect, it’s not your problem.” (That is the year the five-year permit expires, though the program continues, and permits will need to keep being acquired.) In other words, if that occurs, fine sediment won’t be the culprit after all.

Sediment reduction is what the city and two counties are tasked with. Regulators in the basin all say the majority of fine sediment clouding Lake Tahoe is from urban runoff.

But there is more than just particles reaching the lake.

Horne said weather is an uncontrollable factor in all of this. The more snow, the more runoff, thus the cloudier the lake gets. Droughts provide for the best clarity readings.

Midway through the 4½-hour meeting at Embassy Suites, Brendan Ferry, senior planner with El Dorado County, explained how his jurisdiction believes its measuring tools are superior to Lahontan’s.

While the permit allows the jurisdictions to use other tools, Lahontan must approve those tools. But no one could give the multiple speakers for the county an answer as to how it will be determined if their tools are legit, and if a decision will be made so the first deadline of March 15 to provide Lahontan with mandated information can be met.

The county is so incensed with what is going on that the Board of Supervisors recessed their regular meeting for all to attend the Lahontan meeting. As Supervisor Norma Santiago read the prepared statement, her colleagues flanked her in a show of support not usually seen.

“What has been created in the TMDL Management System are tools that lack scientific backing, that are not integrated, are duplicative and/or inefficient and will require tremendous administrative staff time to analyze and implement,” Santiago said.

She went to say, “If you go through with the draft permit today, the predictable result for the county, because of these unnecessary administrative costs, will be layoffs in the transportation department, roads will not be fixed in compliance with the requirements and we may be forced to do very little toward our common goals.”

Money is a big issue for the jurisdictions. It could cost up to $2 million a year to do what Lahontan is asking. Federal money is evaporating. No one knows how the requirements will be implemented without cash to do so.

Lahontan staff has told Lake Tahoe News the Total Maximum Daily Load and now the stormwater permit are not unfunded mandates. But when someone or an agency is told they must do something and no money is provided to do the mandate – that makes it an unfunded mandate.

Ken Grehm, director of Placer County Public Works Department, said he’s been disappointed how Lahontan staff repeatedly say money can’t be an issue. He added that if any useful discussions are going to happen in the future, there must be the realization money is important.

“Water quality is just one of the services we provide,” Grehm said. This sentiment is shared by all jurisdictions.

Lahontan board member Don Jardine, who is also on the Alpine County Board of Supervisors, understands shrinking budgets. He didn’t use the phrase “unfunded mandate” but at the end of his remarks he ultimately said, “things have been put on us that we have to do.”

It’s the federal Environmental Protection Agency that is responsible for the TMDL program throughout the country.

Jacques Landy, who works for the EPA out of an office in the TRPA building, told the board his agency is satisfied with the permit as written and voiced support of its approval.

Sarah Hussong-Johnson, South Lake Tahoe director of engineering, echoed her colleagues in questioning Lahontan’s tools and the money needed to satisfy the permit.

(Hefty fines that could not be articulated well at the meeting will be levied against the jurisdictions if they don’t satisfy the permit requirements.)

Hussong-Johnson also said the city is frustrated with the “lack of a concerted effort with the near shore.”

This is where the growing muck and marked lack of clarity is visible standing on the beach. This isn’t the clarity that is measured. If it were, the numbers would be worse. Instead, a disc that looks like a white dinner plate is lowered into the water from the middle of the lake. That’s how the experts determine lake clarity.

————–

The Lahontan board resumes its meeting this morning at 8:30 at Embassy Suites. The main topic is pesticide use.

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (15)
  1. dogwoman says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    It is the nature of lakes to become meadows, meadows to become forests. Does anyone remember Mirror Lake at Yosemite?
    Yes, keeping Lake Tahoe as pristeen as possible is a noble cause. But unrealistic to believe it will not evolve over time into something different. And spending billions of taxpayer dollars on experiments will not change that. It’ll only make those of us who live here now that much poorer.

  2. Bob says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Lahontan believes it has developed the tools to quantify jobs for itself – that’s all.

  3. Russ says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    The County’s and the City need to take responsibility for their actions. There are many cost effective, simple things that can be done to reduce pollutants to the Lake. The number of errors is this article paint a very different picture than the real situation. Nice “journalism”.

  4. Garry Bowen says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    I rest on my response to Claire’s letter in this same ‘edition’, with these added comments:

    (1) it would appear that Lahontan wants to be the “agent of change” using TMDL, as Harold was ‘on the stump’ advocating yet another 1.5 billion dollars (@100 million dollars/year over the next 15)- but TMDL is in fact an unfunded mandate. . .

    Apparently, Mr. Singer thought that TMDL would put us in a leverage position to get funded by “volunteering” Tahoe as a participant.

    (2) “pesticides”: as the EPA considers anything either “chemical” or “organic” as pollution under their current rules, it would be more “human folly” for Lahontan to go in this direction, as it appears that more study needs to offset the idea that they haven’t succeeded there either, as they seem intent more on “bringing in big guns” than in fully understanding what the ecosystem conditions are that lead to infestation.

    Infestation and invasion of biologic “perpetrators” do not mean they are terrorists attacking, it means that the stewardship needs serious reorientation.

    As to any “hefty” fines: this would be consistent with a society that continues to use money as either a carrot or a stick, in this case “punitive” ones to match our punitive ways. . .

  5. sunriser2 says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Feed the green pig.

    It will only be a matter of time before the local consultants, surveyors, engineers, landscape companies and general engineering companies get their fingers in the pie.

    They will find away to make us pay for this nonsense.

  6. Tahoehuskies says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    “It will only be a matter of time before the local consultants, surveyors, engineers, landscape companies and general engineering companies get their fingers in the pie.”

    Hey, don’t forget that if the above or truly local, their taxes go to the some place that yours go to.

    Also, Lake Tahoe is not the same as Mirror Lake in Yosemite. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of years it would take for Lake Tahoe to “fill-in”. Plus, a huge amount of the lakes that we see today turning into meadows and then forest are from society’s actions to reduce natural forest fires over the last hundred years. Fire kept the trees at bay, and nurtured the land.

  7. Amy Horne says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Although you correctly quoted me in your article, you incorrectly interpreted my meaning when you wrote: “In other words, if that occurs, fine sediment won’t be the culprit after all.”

    Let me be perfectly clear: I am 100% certain that loads of fine sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus are causing Lake Tahoe clarity to decline. Further, I am 100% certain that loads of fine sediment cause the lion’s share of this problem. The science is unambiguous on these points. Please correct your misinterpretation of my meaning in all future posts.

  8. sunriser2 says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    “Hey, don’t forget that if the above or truly local, their taxes go to the some place that yours go to”

    The government toilet?

    Using your logic are foreclosures good for Tahoe because publishing fees go to the Tribune?

  9. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Resist Lahontan

  10. Chuck palahnuik says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Amy, not sure about the basis of your 100 percent certainty. But according to Dr. Alan Jassby, in deep lakes such as Tahoe, it is not enough to institute erosion control measures that target total suspended sediment discharge if the relevant-sized particles continue to get through unhampered. Indeed, the larger, less important particles are the most likely to be removed by watershed management practices, and the resulting improvements to the lake may be far less than anticipated. Swift concluded that suspended inorganic sediments and phytoplanktonic algae both contribute significantly to the reduction in clarity, and that suspended particulate matter, rather than dissolved organic matter, are the dominant causes of clarity loss. Sahoo concluded that historic clarity can be achieved with total reduction of approximately 75% from urban sources.

    These are the conclusions from the best publications available on the topic of clarity.

  11. Skier says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    Lahontan has proven to be the most restrictive environmental agency in the basin. They have literally thrown the sticks in spokes of our future and existing bike trails. They are responsible for the elevated platform next to LT Golf course because that is an SEZ. This kind of nonsense adds hundreds of thousands to projects. Its time the state stops funding their ludicrous positions.

  12. dogwoman says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    You mean the platform that is built of chemically treated wood that gets saturated with water that then drains into the lake every year? That one?

  13. the conservation robot says - Posted: December 7, 2011

    How do you know that those chemicals leach out of the wood easily? Even if there is leaching i bet it is insignificant compared to the contaminates in the water from road runoff.
    Reality check.