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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Don’t trust Lahontan, CTC


image_pdfimage_print

Publisher’s note: This letter was sent Sept. 9 to the California Senate president pro tem and speaker of the California Assembly.

Dear Senator Steinberg and Speaker Perez,

On Sept. 3, 2013, amendments were made to SB630 which establish a new general fund account, the Lake Tahoe Science and Lake Improvement Account. Earlier amendments were focused on the need for a scientifically objective, neutral regime to monitor critical water and air quality indicators for the legislature.

The secretary of Resources is authorized to administer the account, the use of funds has expanded to include aquatic invasive species projects, projects improving public access, reconstruction projects, land acquisitions, and finally monitoring the near-shore.

The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) and the state Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan Region (Lahontan) are the two agencies designated to use this new funding if the agencies produce matching funds. The problem is that these two agencies, for different reasons, have direct conflicts of interest for any near-shore monitoring.

The CTC and Lahontan both have a direct interest in not objectively monitoring the near shore, as this area is showing the most serious and sustained degradation. Instead of wanting to prove the value of their programs by monitoring, both agencies appear to want to conceal unbiased measure consistent with established scientific protocols.

Some have suggested a monitoring regime for critical water quality pollutants much like the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Their operational creed is:

We provide impartial scientific interpretations and neither take sides on environmental issues nor have any political or financial interest in the outcomes of research and monitoring data.

The only legitimate urban stormwater regulation is based on volume reduction through infiltration.

Lahontan’s strategy is to clean stormwater through various actions, e.g. street sweeping, shoulder treatment, and filters, which lack scientific protocols to assess whether their methods are sound. These actions are expensive, capital intensive, and obligate high long-term maintenance costs. The results do not meet with the same level of certainty as infiltration or urban stormwater where the science is sound and not disputed.

It is not in the interest of Lahontan to objectively monitor near-shore water quality, as it would reveal degradation so severe and sources so obvious that the scientific validity of the TMDL would be at risk, raising additional questions about expenditure of prior funding. Models do not necessarily correspond to reality, and the TMDL rewards modeled results, not objective measurements.

The CTC has strayed, since about 2006, from its original intent to buy property in the Tahoe Basin to retire development rights and potential coverage. The CTC was successful doing this for many years, and California taxpayers have spent $108 million through the CTC to purchase 4400+ parcels to “reduce development.”

The CTC has monetized development rights for all parcels purchased with public funds, and as bond funding declines the CTC sees self-preservation value in converting rights into money. About 400 parcels have been classified as “Asset Lands” to potentially sell back to the private sector. The CTC leadership justifies certain public/private partnerships, “to recoup a portion of the public’s capital investment in these acquisitions for future high-priority projects through the sale of the banked development rights.”

The CTC is “reinventing itself,” as an advocate for devoting public resources to an unsustainable redevelopment vision, rather than staying on track as a Conservancy. The public should be informed, and be subject to public debate.

This video link shows what is being ignored by these two agencies.

We believe this amendment should be withdrawn, and the issue of monitoring Lake Tahoe’s vital signs be referred to interim study.

Sincerely,

David McClure, president North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance

Roger Patching, president Friends of Lake Tahoe

Ann Nichols, president North Tahoe Preservation Alliance

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (4)
  1. hikerchick says - Posted: September 15, 2013

    Yes, please watch the video clip. This is interesting about the TMDLs. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to restore reaches of the Upper Truckee River (for example) and we really don’t know how much good it is doing especially with all these free-for-all drainages we see in the video clip. Is this an example of an agency that has found a way to perpetuate itself based on unverified results?

    And what about the thousands of dollars homeowners are being forced to spend on BMPs on their properties that are many miles from the lake? Why should we when storm water elsewhere is being purposely funneled straight into the lake? It almost seems like some sort of joke.

  2. cosa pescado says - Posted: September 15, 2013

    Well, looks like The Pipe Club found another sucker to peddle their BS.

  3. John A says - Posted: September 15, 2013

    NO, not ANOTHER couple of local gov agencies writing their own tickets for self- sustenance ………
    How could this be ?

  4. Intheknow says - Posted: September 17, 2013

    I find it hard to believe that the developer and realtor who wrote this letter have a clue about science. Ask the storage property owner about his BMPs next to Snow Creek. Where is your infiltration facility Dave?