State upholds decision to reclassify Washoe Meadows park, alter river-golf course
By Kathryn Reed
BRENTWOOD – It was almost like the California State Park and Recreation commissioners had split personalities at the Jan. 27 meeting. The morning was jovial and jocular when it came to approving the general plan and EIR for a new state park in the Bay Area, as well as the naming of it. The afternoon was rushed and seemed like commissioners would rather go to lunch than hear what people had to say about Washoe Meadows State Park.
Norma Santiago addresses the State Parks commission Jan. 27 as staff listens. Photo/Kathryn Reed
In fact, the Lake Tahoe state park’s name wasn’t even listed on the agenda.
The board, after seven people spoke, voted 5-0 to maintain the decision made Oct. 20 to accept the final EIR for the Upper Truckee River restoration project, and to swap land between the park and Lake Valley Recreation Area to allow Lake Tahoe Golf Course be reconfigured.
Kathryn Tobias, legal counsel for State Parks, before comments and the vote were taken said the matter before the commission was procedural. State Parks employees had earlier said the rehearing was necessary to make sure everything was in order now that the project is tied up in a lawsuit.
It would be hard to know what the commissioners truly thought beyond their body language because they voted without discussion. Commission Chairwoman Caryl Hart cut people off and only gave people representing an organization three minutes to speak instead of the customary five minutes. She also said the commission had heard everything they needed to hear.
El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago was the first of the seven to speak. All believed the commission should either overturn its original vote or delay Friday’s vote. Santiago asked for three months to prove the information she provided is correct.
“Page 5 of your Draft Resolution 3-2012 states: ‘Resolved: That the legal, social, economic, technological and other benefits of the Project described herein outweigh the unavoidable short-term environmental risks, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the director of State Parks at the time of project approval, and so the unavoidable significant environmental impacts are overridden by these factors and are, therefore, acceptable’,” Santiago read to the commission.
“I submit to you that there is significant scientific documentation that does not support this statement. Andrew Simon, who did most of the analysis on stream channel erosion for the [Lake] Tahoe Basin TMDL, clearly documents that 90 percent of the problem resultant from this type of erosion can be resolved by addressing 14percent of the toe slope issues. Additionally, in this case, the channeling of parts of this river that currently show no evidence of erosion now and in the future will take 10 to15 years to recover. At the time of recovery, the benefit generated from this channeling is incremental at best. In the meantime, the return on the economic, social, technological, legal and environmental investment are disastrous.”
Besides being the elected official for the area of the South Shore where the project is located, Santiago is also chairwoman of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The TRPA must still approve the project.
Brian Judge, a principal planner with TRPA, was at the meeting, but did not speak on the record. After the meeting he told Lake Tahoe News how important it is to fix this reach of the river and that it’s a critical piece of the environmental improvement program.
Bob Anderson with the Sierra Club’s Lake Tahoe chapter was one of the speakers. After the meeting he told Lake Tahoe News he believes the issue will be “dead in the water” when it reaches the TRPA Governing Board.
The Sierra Club wants the river to be restored, but believes the alternative chosen to do so is not achievable and therefore the status quo will remain, Anderson told the commission.
“Financially, it does not pencil out,” Anderson said.
Restoring the river is not the issue that has people up in arms. It’s how it will be done and the impacts to Washoe Meadows State Park that concerns people. It’s biased tours of the area that don’t show pristine locations that will be disturbed, it’s a precedent-setting ruling that allows a state park to be reclassified to a lower status, it’s putting golf before other recreation, it’s putting money before the environment that have people upset.
And as was stated at the meeting at the Brentwood Community Center in the East Bay, they are tired of the condescending reference to being a neighborhood group when members of the Friends of Washoe Meadow reach well beyond the perimeter of the park and basin.
“It was hard to listen to the meeting, especially at the end when so many false statements were made. But the meeting process doesn’t allow us to make any more comments. The word of parks staff is accepted,” Lynne Paulson told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting. “For example, it was completely incorrect that the findings were available at the last commission meeting. Our attorney was there, as was I and others. We picked up all information available in the back of the room and our attorney specifically asked about the findings, but was told they were not available. “
Paulson is part of the group that is suing to stop the project. The suit in large part is based on perceived inadequacies with the California Environmental Quality Act.
“Also, when they said that they had already considered everything public speakers said, it wasn’t true. For example, we were proposing that they use several different methods of river restoration, not just one type,” Paulson said.
Cyndie Walck, hydrologist with State Parks, told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting she is confident the commissioners made the correct decision and that it will benefit the South Shore environmentally and economically.
“It will open up a public park to the public,” she said. More than a mile along the Upper Truckee River that is now only accessible by golfers will be developed into a hiking trail.
Keeping the golf course 18-holes by moving up to nine holes into what today is the state park, but when the project is done will be recreation area, is more economically viable, according to Walck.
The TCW economic analysis that was done after the October decision challenges the state’s assertions. However, the commissioners made no comment on this fact despite being presented with information Friday.
For now, the project is tied up in court, with the next hearing date set for March.
Walck is waiting to be told she can move forward.
“I have the funding to go to the design level of the river restoration,” Walck said.
———
The new state park that was OK’d is near the town of Brentwood, where the meeting was. The name will be Marsh Creek State Park and will be operated as a historic park.
the old country club is getting a face lift,
I hope they make the new 9 holes as much fun or better then what they are taking out
now we will get to fish that nice section of river
Lies, deceit, and possibly special interest. Another corrupt bureaucracy at work.
The entire lot are cowards in the way they handled this situation from the get go. This time by not having it on the agenda, being a procedural matter, doing so at a distant location, and limiting further input.
Will they be held accountable when this project becomes another hole in the ground?
It is a sad day for WMSP.
If this is such a great idea, why did they need to have the meeting 170 miles away from the project in a hard to get to town (Brentwood)so that people couldn’t go to it?? They legally could have held it anywhere in Tahoe and listened to the public. How many lies can they tell…”Open up the park to the public.. IT IS OPEN NOW.. and will have a far greater section CLOSED to the public than they have now. The golf course will be on BOTH sides of the river and you will be able to fish less area than you can presently. I have no interest in walking through a golf course instead of natural habitat. Please restore the river, but don’t hand over that beautiful meadow to a private developer for his own use.
Hey Cindy, will you personally put your cash behind your vocalizations and guarantee the new golf course will be built and economically viable. If not willing to back up your pronouncements, then your are just another petty bureaucrat protecting your job.
Has a user-friendly map been published that clearly shows the area affected before and after the proposed changes?
Using Google maps earth view would be a great place to have boundary lines drawn.
Sounds like they didn’t care what the citizens wanted, just going to follow where the money takes them. Do we live in a democracy anymore?
From myself, and I know many members of the community, thank you to Supervisor Norma Santiago.
Norma has a track record of getting involved in issues that are important to the community and tries to know and understand the viewpoints from both sides. It was no different for WMSP.
This is important to recognize, because only if you truly strive to understand the project can you understand the ramifications, and not just blindly accept the propaganda that is being forced upon you by the establishment. We are lucky to have her; someone who is willing to go against the establishment when she believes it is wrong.
In regard to the CSP, particularly Cyndi Walck, Louis Nastro, and additionally the Commissioners, it needs to be recognized that these are people who are devoid of any integrity or ethics. Whether they are receiving any personal gain due to their special interests is only speculative.
They cannot be criminally prosecuted, although it is my opinion that they are guilty of many crimes against the taxpayers of the State of California.
The above are very harsh and bold statements. Read the article and appreciate the total disregard in the manner of the CSP and the CSP Commissioners’ to the people of the State of California. This has been their demeanor through the entire process since its introduction in 2006, and it begins to substantiate the allegations.
Some of the CSP Commissioners were appointed by Governor Jerry Brown. The usual process to become a Commissioner is to contribute large campaign funds to the candidate running for office. If that person wins the election, they do a favor for you, such as appointing you to be a Commissioner. Since the Commissioners are appointed by the Governor, it is difficult if not impossible to have them disciplined or recalled. The whole system is corrupt.
In addition, the Commissioners’ are not necessarily educated in the areas for which they make decisions. They are “informed” by the CSP personnel with whatever is their bias. From the meeting the end of last year at the Lake Tahoe Golf Course, it appeared that they were either deaf, incapable of independent logical reasoning, or coached and bought off ahead of time. Evidence point to the latter.
The CSP won this battle, but the war is not over. Now the lawsuit will continue. If WMC wins the lawsuit, the CSP has to pay their legal fees, but not the reverse. Just more taxpayer money being spent regardless of which side wins.
This is a question and not a confrontation to Chief Slowroller. Are you an actual member of the Washoe Tribe, or are you a plant for the CSP using a Native American title? I ask because your comments, which you have the right to express, sound like they are from someone who has no idea of what they are talking about.
Caresaboutthecommunity, I like your comment. To me it says, “wake-up people” and look what is being forced upon us. Too many people just accept. It’s the “Sheeple Syndrome.” We must continue to fight back.
There was a good article in the Reno Gazette Journal on 1/18/12, that should be of interest to those in favor of this golf course relocation project. If anyone thinks golf is going to be a boom for the Lake Tahoe economy; think again. This article succinctly outlines golf today and its continual decline into the future. The statistics are from the National Golf Foundation.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120119/BIZ02/301190008/As-golf-participation-drops-homeowners-face-new-reality
You complain about this process being corrupt since 2006 and then blame Gov. Brown’s appointees for the end-product. Kinda like group amnesia of the bushies and ahnolds so prevalent in GOP circles these days… and thanks to Their SCOTUS appointees all elective offices can be purchased. Corporations are people and money is speech. The people be damned.
SmedleyButler. Thank you for your response. What I was trying to convey is that “government” in general is corrupt.
Not all of the current CSP Commissioners’ were appointed by Jerry Brown, some were appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Again, the point missed is that being any Governor’s appointee makes any type of discipline difficult or impossible if the public feels that have not done right by the people.
I will make comment on my personal political affiliations, because it leads to a very good point.
I was not a “Bushie” as you infer and did not vote for the man. For more than 40-years I have been an Independent and vote for whoever in which ever party I believe is the best candidate. But I do my research thoroughly and don’t cast an uninformed vote. Nor do I jump on a bandwagon because of what others say.
I am glad you brought this up because if everyone would think for themselves and not just vote on “party lines” or on propagandist hearsay, a lot more positive outcomes could be achieved. Perhaps even at a lower cost to taxpayers?
This is applicable to every level of government, including the CSP.
There are points on which we do agree. Elective offices can be purchased at every level of government. And as we blindly continue down the path of socialism, the people will be increasingly damned.
You play the “reasonable con” role there very well until the last paragraph. Nope, BS.. This is war. There is no chance for compromise with this Congress stymied by the teabaggers. Independent, middle of the roaders are an ongoing, ill-informed joke. If you actually had a clue what democratic socialism is I’d argue with you.
Nothing to argue. State your case.
Last year many of the state parks were going to be closed, now we have dollars for this??
This project has nothing to do with water quality and has everything to do with golfcourse development. Kudos to Norma … . Mr Judge,. What are you endorsing over there?? Failed projects that have never been deemed a success …? Ever… This is crazy!!! programs are folding and here the state somehow has the option of exploring investments like this.. Preposterous…
Besides for the accused “NIMBY-ISM”, shouldn’t the real issue at hand be the declassification of a State Park to State Recreation Area? This is simply a downgrade in natural resource protection.
What “new” uses will be allowed in the newly classified Washoe Meadows? And what will the cumulative impact of this declassification be statewide?
Overall, this section of the UTR needs to be restored for water quality and wildlife habitat.
Yo Warrior My Indian heratige is from the Stillicome Tribe, Nisqualy Reservation in the state of Washington
if you were a local then you would Know who the Slowrollers are
do I care about the Washoe Indians? Yes
do I care about Rocky Boice and how he was railroaded into life in prision? Yes
do I understand that we are the Indians who live in Lake Tahoe now? Yes
I don’t belive that reconfigurating the golf course into that flat piece of land next to Amakers Ranch, is going to cuase any harm. And maybe it will slow down the amount of fertilizer that goes into the Truckee River then into the Lake
i’m a local and don’t know the slowrollers … so, who are you?
It came out in meetings that golf courses use a tremendous amount of nitrogen containing fertilizers.
Experts (people with Ph.D.’s in respective fields) pointed out that this would be detrimental to the area and run-off into the lake. I do not know all the science, so I am parroting what was said. Nitrogen does not break down, and if not utilized by the flora, it will ultimately end up in the lake. No one can predict the down the road what the consequences will be. This was one of the objections to the “science” behind this project; in other words, lack of science.
The Commissioner’s response was “well, they will just have to use some sort of eco-friendly fertilizer.” There is no such thing according to all the experts.
MissMort, you are not parroting well. There is a nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is in every living organism and makes up most (close to 80%) of the air you breathe. Nitrogen is taken up by living plants, then released by dieing plants and then made biologically available when dead plants are broken down (compost). So all a golf course has to do is to use the proper amount of fertilizer and it will be consumed by the grass on site. Over fertilizing means the nitrogen is not uptaken and runs off. Thats bad because then it can run to the lake.
So how hard is it to use the correct amount? Not very. And nitrogen fertilizer is expensive enough that it is worth doing some basic analysis to figure out when and how much to fertilize.
John,
At the meetings the issue of fertilization was a major point of contention. If it could be “proven” that it was no big deal, it would not have created such a controversy.
It was stated by more than one Ph.D that only 30% of the nitrogen in the applied fertilizer is actually taken up by the plants, and the rest is run-off that would eventually end up in the lake. Further, it was said that the run-off nitrogen never breaks down; thus the major cause for concern. What would be the effects on the lake, fish, and plants later? This was not addressed.
Contrary to your statement, it was stated by both sides that there was no way to calculate accurately how much fertilizer to put down at any given time as there were too many variables such as humidity, temperature, wind, and other forces of nature.
So I am given two conflicting opinions, which do I believe?
Common sense tells me that if this was truly a “non-issue,” there would be the science behind it to substantiate the claim, but there is not. Further, there would not be so much opposition from scientists on the other side.
P.S.
It was in response to one of the scientists for the CSP who said there was no way to accurately calculate how much fertilizer should be put down and when, that one of the Commissioner’s made the statement that “well, they will just have to use eco-friendly fertilizer.” Very scientific statement.
Missmort, just to clarify something. Elements can never be broken down. Nitrogen is an element. It is nitrogen today, it will be nitrogen when the cows come home. Now there is a nitrogen cycle. I did a poor job with it, read this: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/nitrogen_cycle.html
So here is the point, there are types of nitrogen that are biologically available and forms of nitrogen that are not biologically available. The problem with fertilizer is that biologically available nitrogen, fertilizer, is also very water soluble. So fertilizer can run off readily. But, it is also true that fertilizer is very expensive to purchase and very costly to apply. So golf courses have an incentive to use only as must as is necessary.
I did a quick google search on this. There is a great deal of data readily available about reducing fertilizer runoff. You really should read up before you form an opinion.
I was talking to a monitoring person at the TRPA years ago and I asked about fertilizer runoff from golf courses, specifically Edgewood. They said that Edgewood has been heavily monitored for years and that they have never caused any reason for concern. This person was also pointing out strips of grass on commercial properties that were over fertilized, as an environmental problem.
So fertilizer can be applied properly by golf courses. That is not that surprising. Many activities are possible without causing needless harm to the environment. The problem is that some people are unaware and/or unconcerned.
Personally I am only concerned about the health of the meadow system. Raise the depth to water, lower banks, remove unnatural straight sections. If a golf course can also exist while accomplishing these goals..
I’ m all fore it. (I had to do it, sorry)
the TRPA does not monitor Dagget creek running thru the Edgewood
the Edgewood hires a consulting firm to monitor the creek and write a report
Hmmm.
Not true. Data is collected on the creek and the ponds withing the golf course. Imagine this, I almost made an ass of myself assuming that Edgewoods use of fertilizer was a problem and that data existed to back that up.
John,
Is there a double standard?
After attending the meetings and reading the information that was available, I came to certain conclusions. They are my “opinions” based on the aforementioned sources, and I am free to express them.
Your statement of “You really should read up before you form an opinion,” is out of line.
The information I relayed is the information the people were given at the meetings, and through discussion with other community members at various times and places. In addition I have read many related articles, but I certainly would not claim to be an expert.
The Commissioners who voted on this had less background than many of us in the community, and no scientific training.
Essentially what you just stated is that anyone who posts an opinion needs to “educate” themselves on the topic so they can be an “expert” in the field before they can express an opinion.
Therefore, one must then conclude that the decision of the CSP Commissioners’ should be voided because they are not “educated” nor “experts” in the field.
Miss mort… Your last sentence nailed it. They have no clue so they rely on thier staff who have “no clue”…. Leaving the golfcourse intact is restoration? Developing a golf course is restoration? Does anyone know what restoration is? This is not it… Restoration would remove the golf course… Not create more… Protect the banks, control grade, create buffer and walk away. All this funding and controversy so some fluvial nuts can move certain sections of the river.. Preposterous!