With 38 pipes draining into Lake Tahoe, are lake clarity efforts worth a billion bucks?
By Anne Knowles
Current efforts to improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe are not only a waste of time and money, they are a fraud.
That’s the claim made in the inaugural newsletter of the Tahoe Pipe Club, a secretive coalition of “citizen, business owners, scientists and engineers,” according to its website, who are fed up with what it says is more than a billion dollars squandered on misguided scientific techniques which have failed to reduce lake turbidity.
One of 13 drains in South Lake Tahoe that reach Lake Tahoe. Photo/LTN file
In its newsletter and on its website, the group points to “ineffective watershed management practices,” consisting of mechanisms such as road gutters and storm drain systems, often installed in flood-prone areas that do not impact the lake.
“As justification to use lake clarity funds, the public was told that these erosion control and BMP (best management practices) retrofit projects would clean the water which they do not, and these public relations campaigns were the genesis of the hoax which persists still today,” reads the newsletter entitled “Turning Tahoe Black?”
The club advocates using infiltration methods in which stormwater is absorbed into the ground via swales and basins rather than filtered and conveyed back into the lake, and to focus on only those watersheds that have a direct link to the lake in order to best utilize dwindling lake clarity funds.
The newsletter also grades eight clarity projects based on six categories. Only the Montgomery Estates project in South Lake Tahoe received a passing grade and was judged to provide a benefit. The Luther Pass to Meyers project, for example, got an A for urban restoration, a C for hydrologic connectivity, and an F for the remaining criteria.
“The declining water quality and clarity of Lake Tahoe after spending a billion dollars and having ignored what matters most, the urban runoff from highways, streets, roads, and drainage and its discharge directly into Lake Tahoe through culverts and pipes, which account for an estimated 75 percent of the TMDL (total daily maximum load)” spurred members to form the club in 2010, John Runnels, a club member, said in an email to Lake Tahoe News.
The club won’t release member names or numbers. One member using the pseudonym Tyler Durden, from the book and film “Fight Club,” posts to the website and sends out the group’s newsletter. In an email to Lake Tahoe News, he says the focus should be on the club’s ideas, not its adherents.
“Pipe club is about the idea of sustainable effective urban actions to get to predevelopment clarity,” Durden said in an email to Lake Tahoe News. “Nothing will please us more than disbanding. We agree to dissolve when our goals are met.”
Those goals, as outlined at the website, include replacing conveyance-based approaches to water quality with infiltration methods, stopping unnecessary river realignment, no more land coverage tracking for water quality purposes, and an end to road sweeping and the paving of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The club gets its name from the hundreds of drain pipes that feed into the lake, which the group is documenting in photos and videos at its website and in annual calendars.
“This 2012 Lake Tahoe Storm Drain Calendar is dedicated to the hundreds of urban outfall pipes which chronically discharge toxic storm water directly into the perennial streams of Lake Tahoe and Lake Tahoe itself every time it rains or snows,” reads the website.
The group has identified 38 pipes it says are a priority: 13 in South Lake Tahoe, including the three El Dorado pipes; 10 in McKinney Bay; four in Tahoe Pines; three in Kings Beach; two in Incline Village; and one each in Carnelian Bay, Marla Bay, Meeks Bay, Sunnyside, Tahoe Vista and Tahoma.
“The pipe club is compiling all this evidence of pipes putting dirty water into the lake,” said Dylan Eichenberg, a senior at UC Berkeley who is studying conservation and resource management, grew up in Tahoma and supports the pipe club’s goals. “The pipes are by far one of the most significant impacts on the lake.”
Eichenberg is not a member of the club, but knows some of its members, has followed its work and supports it, and studied the same issues for his term paper entitled “Urban Impacts on Lake Tahoe”. He would like to see what he calls “rain gardens” installed at the lake, which stormwater would flow into instead of storm drains.
“There could be trenches or basins every couple blocks as needed,” Eichenberg said.
Tahoe Pipe Club is also routinely taking Secchi depth measurements and posting the results to Twitter and Facebook. Secchi depth measurements gauge water clarity using a dinner-dish sized-disk lowered into the water. Clarity is measured at the depth at which the disk is last visible to the naked eye.
The club hopes by posting the data and other related science it can raise public consciousness on the issue and influence lake clarity work and the resources supporting it. The group has no plans to raise money or initiate projects, and it does not attend public meetings such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, although it keeps the TRPA informed of its work.
For its part, the TRPA says it is aware of the group but defends its focus on water quality treatment based on the existing conveyance approach.
“TRPA appreciates Tahoe Pipe Club’s dedication to the water quality of Lake Tahoe,” the TRPA said in a statement provided to Lake Tahoe News. “The problem is not what comes out of the pipes, but what goes in. That is why TRPA is committed to supporting environmental redevelopment projects that include erosion control efforts for treating stormwater runoff in our built environment, from which science tells us is where 72 percent of the pollution entering Lake Tahoe comes. As water quality science evolves, TRPA will continue to support the most effective techniques for treating storm water on both public and private property.”
Wait a minute; an environmental group that has identified the problem, come up with a solution and has not filed a law suit yet? Watch out TRPA and League to save the Lake. They may give environmentalist a bad name.
I can get behind a group like this.
Interesting article, I like their ideas. What about the massive mosquito boom that would result from the ‘rain gardens’?
Proves my point that most environmental groups do nothing but take tax dollars through grants with no idea of what they are doing. They know how to write a good story line though. Perhaps they should move to Hollywood and become writers for CSI-Tahoe. Sorry to be so arrogant but I’m tired of my tax dollars being wasted to support such BS. I’d rather you call the FAA on a daily basis to find out why the government is making clouds in our skies on a weekly basis. There goes one now across the sky right now.
The two approaches don’t strike me as mutually exclusive. Both can be done simultaneously, given enough funding.
I share the concern about potentially providing prime mosquito habitat using the pipe club’s idea. This article doesn’t say whether that’s been addressed by the group.
As for the mystery around their membership… I don’t expect groups to reveal their membership lists; only their leadership. That would have to be made available before I would donate money or join.
If the soil percs well, and does not become standing water, than there would be no mosquitoes?
The approach they are putting forward really challenges the thinking of the status quo. Could lake clarity be improved at a signifcantly reduced price tag? Given the fact that federal and state funding will be hard to find this approach could yield the best results for the cost, something everyone would like to see.
The website also has some very interesting research on street sweeping including one study by the USGS that suggests the desired results will not occur as Lahontan is suggesting it will.
I would disagree with TRPA slightly in that its what goes in the pipe as well as what goes comes out. The challenge is what is most effective given the limited resources. Very interesting.
Tyler Durden, the so-called “author” of the “Tahoe Pipe Club” newsletter, is the name of the imaginary character played by Brad Pitt that the protagonist imagines in the 1999 film Fight Club. He’s the delusionary anarchist that blows up the city in the end. You’re being played, Anne and Kae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club
Besides all the tax dollars being wasted, let’s not forget all the traffic delays we had to put up with last Summer, and apparently in the next couple Summers as well. Good to know our supposedly broke State, through CalTrans, is taking its sweet time on a project that really has no benefit!
The message doesn’t change no matter the names used. Story says they are trying to be secretive and anonymous. A clever name should not surprise anyone.
Excellent. A secretive, mysterious, underground environmental organization using fictional names like Tyler Durden, a soap salesman in a movie, making more sense than bureaucrats at TRPA and Lahontan who have spent millions on never-ending meetings, conferences, studies, employees, and rules and regulations.
The club is secretive and anonymous, yet the story names John Runnels as a member. I don’t pay any serious attention to anything associated with that name.
Besides for enhancing awareness of the storm drain pipes that discharge directly into the Lake what else does this “Club” do? They apparently are not a nonprofit, so who knows where donated money would go to.
Maybe they should take the next step and “walk the talk.” You can increase awareness all you want, but without some kind of action involved nothing tends to get done.
No action can be taken until they make it legal to do so. Part of the problem is that TMDL actually makes it legal (under the clean water act!) for these pipes to dump dirty water into the lake. That’s a disgrace. But anyway action taken needs to be legal, so partly what the club is advocating is to make it legal and possible to actually take effective action in the urban setting and stop storm water volumes from reaching the lake.
How do YOU know they aren’t a non profit?
If these guys are so confident in their “science” why won’t they put their name to it?
It’s not their science. It’s everybody’s science. Look at the links they posted on their science page. All of the resources on that page contain the names of each scientist who worked on each report. Pipe Club contributors remain anonymous for a good reason. People tend to shoot the messenger, especially those in a position of power when the message shows their shortcomings and abuses. That’s understandable. But this is about the service that they are doing for the community by adding the drainage issue to the public discourse. It’s about what’s going on in their images and videos, not who was holding the camera on those stormy days. I respect them for what they are doing. It takes a lot of guts and a vision of greatness to challenge such a paradigm. And it takes a LOT of work, on top of the work they do to support their families.
It’s a little gutless and lacks both accountability and crediblity to be unwilling to stand by what they put out there.
Fire all the green leeches and let these folks give it a try. They can’t do any worse.
is that kristi from the trpa … talk about gutless and lacking credibility
Gutless? Hardly. Who cares where good ideas come from? It’s not the politics of ideas like what organization put forward what idea but the substance of the idea. The Pipe Club has done an admirable job of challenging status quo thinking. At least they put forward the scientific research on their website that is the basis for their ideas.
Since stormwater doesn’t have to be transported out of the basin like sewage, why can’t it be used for irrigation purposes? In other parts of the country, rainwater and runoff is collected and stored in tanks or cisterns and used for irrigation – and in some cases after filtration drinking -purposes. This group sounds like that have some positive ideas worth listening to.
I only questioned the Tahoe Pipe Club’s non-profit status because they ask for money on their website, but no where does it state that they are a certified non-profit.
@Tahoe-Warrior-42. How do you know they actually are? Did you do your due diligence and at least read over their website? I’m guessing not.
It says this right on their website:
“Tahoe Pipe Club is an unincorporated nonprofit association.”
I wouldn’t send them any money unless you knew exactly who was receiving it.
The group seems a little strange to me. I am not convinced that are really interested in the science. They are anti-BMP, anti-TRPA, anti-restoration projects.
On the matter of science, they offer a ‘secchi disk’ frisbee. Sure, anything white and round with a known, constant diameter can be used. But a plastic frisbee won’t work. It needs a weight.
“During wet weather, the Pipe Club secchi disk frisbee can be used to measure the clarity of Lake Tahoe”
So if the bottom of the frisbee doesn’t have a hook to attach something, it isn’t really much of a tool for data collection.
They are conveniently not discussing the overall health of the ecosystems in the Tahoe Basin.
They have some good points, but something isn’t quite right.
I wouldn’t give them any money.
Unincorporated means they are not a 501(C) tax exempt entity. All contributions are taxable to them and non-deductible to the donor unless they have not properly disclosed their fiscal sponsor.
This for example:
“TahoePipeClub asks why are we still realigning rivers in the name of lake clarity if..”
Is misleading. realignment is done primarily for the health of meadows, it wasn’t done only ‘in the name of lake clarity’.
And this “In fact measurements are suggesting stream realignment is making lake clarity worse.” is not supported by anything. The paper that they link to, Riparian Ecosystem Restoration Effectiveness Framework, does not even attempt to discuss this claim.
They fail to link to the Trout Creek study, which is the only one with any data that could be used to back up their claim. I read it, I linked it a few weeks ago. And it doesn’t back up their claim.
I don’t have the time to evaluate all of their statement and supporting documents on their page http://tahoepipeclub.com/Lake_Tahoe_Science.html .
I suspect there are more problems and they are not using the papers they link to properly. And this is just based on how poorly written the paragraphs are and the complete lack of real citations.
The paragraphs contain a lot of loaded questions that end in statement that are unsupported. Example:
“TahoePipeClub asks why we are realigning entire river systems if there are more cost effective alternatives which do not have the long term environmental consequences of river realignment. ”
The final statement about long term environmental consequences is out of place in this paragraph. It isn’t discussed anywhere. It isn’t even part of the paper they link to. I doubt that the person who wrote this paragraph has a basic understanding of that Simon paper.
I would be very skeptical of any claim they make. Just because they link to a journal article, doesn’t mean that they have used the information in it properly.
Another example:
“TahoePipeClub believes that street sweeping may be a detriment to water quality ” and then a link to another paper.
They don’t discuss anything about that paper. They believe that…. why? I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am just pointing out that they are not clearly backing up their opinion. They don’t present their opinion as “We believe this because of x,y,z”
If they want to use scientific research to support their opinions, they should do so properly. Currently they are not.
I have an idea. It is supposed to rain tomorrow and Friday. Everyone meet at their priority outfall pipes and make some observations about the impacts from the pipes to the near shore zone. Their website has a table and maps. This is what pipe club is about. Those pipes are ignored, and the urban runoff is nasty. Starting at that point we can dialogue about how to fix the issue. First the group proposes to stop doing what has been done in the past in the name of lake clarity and start infiltrating the urban runoff that is running into the lake. I challenge anyone that sees these pipes discharging into the lake to challenge the premise of the group.
Robot States-You State ““This for example:“TahoePipeClub asks why are we still realigning rivers in the name of lake clarity if..” Is misleading. realignment is done primarily for the health of meadows, it wasn’t done only ‘in the name of lake clarity’.”
Pipe Club response – If this is the case then stop using water quality as a primary goal in the restoration of streams that also use water quality funds for their construction.
Robot States- “And this “In fact measurements are suggesting stream realignment is making lake clarity worse.” is not supported by anything.”
Pipe Club response – This is a tough one… The fact there is no water quality data to rely on for pre-post construction makes this an opinion based topic. We know that water quality was decreased during construction of the airport reach realignment, just ask Lahontan for the construction water quality data for that reach. Also, the water was incredibly turbid during its introduction, so the optical sensor in my eye and the measurements we collected showed an increase. Be it known, the construction of that reach was about as responsible as it gets and the contractor, one of the best in the basin. This project was meticulously phased and allowed to mature before water was introduced. So…, what happens in areas that we cannot see such as Blackwood that are for the most part unregulated and no measurements gathered? The success is opinion based… The data suggest that Blackwood increased in sediment production and the State of the Lake Report stated “Blackwood Creek suspended sediment loads have exceeded those of the Upper Truckee River for the last three years, highly unusual for low flow years.” This lack of information to prove success of the project is clouded by excessive discharges that are overlooked in the name of restoration. We know these systems take 10-20 years to stabilize with equilibrium taking maybe perhaps much longer periods of time. The Restoration effectiveness framework details these issues and Simon explained to us that all our tributaries are decreasing in sediment. To claim water quality, well. Its stretch at best… This is using the best available science…
Robot States – “The paper that they link to, Riparian Ecosystem Restoration Effectiveness Framework, does not even attempt to discuss this claim.
They fail to link to the Trout Creek study, which is the only one with any data that could be used to back up their claim. I read it, I linked it a few weeks ago. And it doesn’t back up their claim. “
Pipe Club response – Excerpts from Riparian Ecosystem Restoration Effectiveness Framework
Lesson #1 – Effectiveness documentation for past restoration projects were challenging to obtain and often contained inconsistent or incomplete information. In some instances no documentation was available.
Lesson #2 – There have been incomplete or inconsistent definitions of the goal of stream restoration efforts in Lake Tahoe riparian ecosystems.
Lesson #3 – Within many restoration project reports, the impairments, existing conditions and project objectives are missing or unclear.
Lesson #4 – Few effectiveness monitoring efforts have demonstrated a clear linkage between monitoring results and project objectives.
Lesson #5 – Even with the best planning and documentation, some projects have not been able to produce the desired benefits as designed and implemented.
Robot States – “I don’t have the time to evaluate all of their statement and supporting documents on their page http://tahoepipeclub.com/Lake_Tahoe_Science.html .”
Pipe Club response – You must draw you own conclusions based on the information presented. If you want us to write a book on “Why the Water Quality Program failed for Dummies”, then I guess we can do that. The beauty of measurements is that it takes away the perception of our senses and relies purely on fact. Data and measurements are the only way to prove or validate a claim; otherwise all you have is your opinion.
Robot States – “I suspect there are more problems and they are not using the papers they link to properly. And this is just based on how poorly written the paragraphs are and the complete lack of real citations. The paragraphs contain a lot of loaded questions that end in statement that are unsupported. Example: “TahoePipeClub asks why we are realigning entire river systems if there are more cost effective alternatives which do not have the long term environmental consequences of river realignment. ”
Pipe Club response – For example please see the Mass Failure frequency paper by Simon. The crux is that a huge cost benefit can be gained by simply protecting the banks in place on the creeks. This is more cost effective. We are presenting the information, what you do with it is up to you…. We can’t hold your hand while you’re reading it. If you are technical at all or interested, the results speak for themselves.
Robot States – “The final statement about long term environmental consequences is out of place in this paragraph. It isn’t discussed anywhere. It isn’t even part of the paper they link to. I doubt that the person who wrote this paragraph has a basic understanding of that Simon paper.”
Pipe Club response – Certain members are more versed than others in restoration. We would not make the claim if it was not backed by science. That what our group does and what it promotes. This is not an opinion. The report speaks for itself… I encourage you to read it. Here is a quote from that publication “Numerical simulations of suspended-sediment loadings from disturbed and undisturbed western streams and the Upper Truckee River for the next 50 years show a trend of decreasing sediment delivery to Lake Tahoe. This is particularly significant for the western streams because they currently produce some of the highest loadings to the lake and, over the past 20 years these high loads (per unit runoff) have remained relatively constant. That future loadings from the Upper Truckee River are simulated to decrease is significant because: (1) it is the largest contributor of suspended- and fine-grained sediment to the lake, (2) streambank erosion has increased recently, in part due to the effects of the January 1997 storm, and (3) notwithstanding the recent increase in bank erosion, loads (per unit runoff) over the longer term (past 24 years) have been shown to be decreasing”
Robot States – “I would be very skeptical of any claim they make. Just because they link to a journal article, doesn’t mean that they have used the information in it properly.”
Pipe Club response – Then I encourage you to go read the publications on our website yourself… This way you can draw your own conclusions and create a worthwhile argument or perhaps hop onboard with Pipe Club as our members have already studied and researched these topics. The membership is growing and it’s FREE…
Robot States – “Another example: “TahoePipeClub believes that street sweeping may be a detriment to water quality ” and then a link to another paper. They don’t discuss anything about that paper. They believe that…. why? I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am just pointing out that they are not clearly backing up their opinion. They don’t present their opinion as “We believe this because of x,y,z””
Pipe Club response – Again, the data speaks for itself… We draw our conclusions based on science developed by the best in the industry. We aren’t making this up… Go to the Pipe Club website, check out our publications we present, do your own research and let’s dialogue. If you have questions, you can always email Tyler, ask a question or start a debate. Pipe Club is using the current state of knowledge on topics to develop its conclusions. Pipe Club only uses science in developing its thoughts. Perhaps some members voice frustrations through controversial dialogue… That seems genuine to me… Also it creates dialogue for many others regardless of their status and those that think its counter productive. If you cant refute it, it doesn’t mean you have to accept it. If a counter argument exists, then present it, if not, you can’t refute the best science on topics that draw real conclusions by the top professionals in the industry.
Mr Conservation Robot…, you express many opinions yourself that are both non scientific and emotional. You have developed an opinion of Pipe Club without even evaluating the facts or reading the literature, suggesting the information is flawed or presented inappropriately. Present some information and you will be taken seriously… I see nothing you present that educates me on anything or any references to support your stance. We have presented the science, how you use that is up to you.
Pipe club and its increasing members chose to remain anonymous for various reasons, but the information presented speaks for itself. Thanks for the comment; we are now fully encouraged by your response to continue our cause…
RK said it.
The science speaks for itself, it’s up to you how to use it.
Wonderful post! With 38 pipes draining into Lake Tahoe, are lake clarity efforts worth a billion bucks? | Lake Tahoe News seriously tends to make my morning a bit happier :D Continue alongside the exceptional articles! Thanks, There’s certainly
It’s so ridiculous, it’s almost funny except its our money. The scientists say we should keep feeding them , aka funding them, so they can tell us that the lake is not as clear as it was 1000 years ago, although no one who was there at the time is here now, but ok, we can agree, it’s probably not as clear as it was 1000 years ago.
The government we also keep funding, tells us to make the lake better, we can’t paint our house pink, we can’t be loud, and we have to scrap pine needles away from the house, because that makes the lake clearer, and also feeds the government.
As a citizery we stand up and demand answers to explain why we just don’t improve the obvious, like the pipes, the roads, the stuff going right into the lake. We should just close the TRPA, tell the League to take a hike and invest the money we’d save into doing the things those groups keep us from doing.
We can’t go back 1000 years, but if everyone would get out of our way we could maybe get the things done we know need to be done and in a 1000 years someone might say we did a good job.
TRPA said in a statement, “the problem is not what comes out of the pipes, but what goes in,” is direct evidence of the utter illogical minds there. It all matters, TRPA. What goes in does matter, as does what “it” (the water) collects along the way before it comes out. If TRPA’s ridiculous statement had any basis in sound science they would know the Water Quality Control Boards statewide require measuring the content of the water – at the outfalls, pipes, not where the water goes in.
If the TRPA can’t get it right, why are they in charge of designing the standards?
What comes out absolutely matters. The condition of the pipes, treatment facilities within the drainage system also matter.
Ignoring other ideas, because they come from unknown sources, don’t work for the TRPA or Lahanton, matters a lot. We need fresh ideas, I say to Pipe Club, bring it on, keep the movement moving and get people to listen.