Beauty or the bucks?
Placer County money blues could waylay restoration of Lake Tahoe hues
Is the price to keep Tahoe blue too high? A $1.2-billion estimate for getting Lake Tahoe closer to its original blue is being met with little enthusiasm by Placer County government. With no end to tight budgets in sight, County Executive Officer Tom Miller and Granite Bay-area Supervisor Kirk Uhler questioned how the county could come up with its share of funding for work to restore the Sierra lake’s historic clarity. Clarity was measured at 97 feet in the late 1960s but has been declining nearly a foot a year since then. Sediment is one of the major factors being blamed. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency have a long-term goal of restoring the historic clarity of the legendary lake. Harold Singer, Lahontan executive officer, said Wednesday that it would be up to local governments to come up with specific projects and funding. The $1.2 billion estimate is a good starting point on a 10- to 20-year program that could bring clarity at the lake to the 80-foot level, he said. Singer presented an outline of the Lake Tahoe “total maximum daily load” concept for cutting silt levels on the lake at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. It targets stormwater runoff – the fine sediment caused by erosion that is being linked to Tahoe’s increasingly murky appearance. Uhler questioned the possibility of a program that wouldn’t include developer cooperation, noting that environmental organizations in the Kings Beach area have threatened a number of private projects with lawsuits. Federal and state funding is being seen as a potential major source of revenue. “Doing nothing isn’t enough – you need urban redevelopment,” he said. Uhler added that the initial steps in increasing Tahoe clarity would be “picking the low-hanging fruit” but the final push to bring clarity back another 10 feet could cost $10 billion. “At what point do we say it’s not worth it?” Uhler said. Singer said that water quality and developer perspectives have to be balanced and his organization is reaching out to stakeholders in both the environmental and business communities. Miller said the county would have no money in its general fund for “miscellaneous sorts of things” like the clarity program at Tahoe. “Federal and state monies are drying up and the only way we get new stuff built is through new development,” Miller said. “Fees are the only mechanism we have.” Singer said that it wouldn’t be the right time for adding more fees to developers to pay for the clarity program. “But we have to look at this over a longer period of time,” he said.
|
Change Location:
|
There would'nt be so much sediment in the lake IF THEY WOULD QUIT BUILDING UP THERE!!!!!. Thank the county officials for that.
Building in the Tahoe Basin is totally controlled and has been since 1971 thanks to TRPA. Building outside the basin like in the Truckee area is not controlled as much and that building does not affect the Lake. The last report I saw from the UC Davis lab showed that lake clarity had leveled out and seemed to be holding.
Did I hear correctly...billions?...this is a silly proposal at best and I want in on the new blue contracts! We can't even fix the roads in this area and your worried about the color and clarity of the water? Here is a hint...pass some real regulations on those dumping directly into the lake and the surrounding areas living near the lake...and stop asking for money that does not exist for projects that are fool hardy at best. When the snow melts or the rain falls.. it all goes directly into the lake and everything uphill always travels downhill......
Well, if aesthetics is all we are concerned with, how about Zebra Mussels? They've cleared up Lake Erie. Although they certainly screwed up the food chain as well and covered nearly every hard surface, but once again if blue water is all we care about it would work wonders.
Every now and then there is a movement to create one county out of the Tahoe area. Maybe next time it comes up we should help with that.
"There would'nt be so much sediment in the lake IF THEY WOULD QUIT BUILDING UP THERE!!!!!. Thank the county officials for that."
Exactly ...the county wants the development fees and tax dollars and has promoted building for that reason, now when its time to clean up its mess there are empty pockets...where did all the impact fees, development dollars, taxes go?
Auburnite:
Where did all the impact fees go.... ask TRPA, after all they control our side of Lake and nothing absolutely nothing gets done up there without TRPA approval. And TRPA did not even let those who live up there clear trees and debris off their property which was one of the reasons the Angora fire was so bad. And and for quit building up there, how do you expect TRPA and the County to say no to deep pocket developers and wealthy people who have the ability to pay 1 million dollars for a quarter acre to build a home on.. ooops correction.... second or vacation home on.... Money, it is always money.
Mr. Singer might do some reading on the roles and responsibilities of the federal, State(s), and local governments in the Tahoe basin. TRPA has primary responsibility for Lake Tahoe's water quality. TRPA was created by federal law, under a two-state interstate compact between California and Nevada. It is legally incorrect to assume that local governments constitute a "first line of defense" against water quality degradation, even though local governments have representation on the TRPA board. Likewise, it is incorrect to cavalierly assign local governments responsibility for funding water quality remedies. Where local governments have express responsibility for the actions directly degrading water quality, they are responsible for assuring (not necessarily funding) mitigation. Sounds like another State government pass-the-buck proposition. Maybe TRPA, the federal government, California, and Nevada ought to step up to the plate and find the money to do the job --- if,indeed, the "problem" and "solution" have been accurately scoped out and can stand up to an objective cost-benefit analysis.
Applegator - you would do well to review the Clean Water Act as well as the California Water Code regarding "who" is responsible for water quality protection in the Tahoe Basin. Section 303 of the CWA requires the states to identify impaired water bodies, find the causes of impairment, and do something about it. Lake Tahoe is losing clarity due to pollutants in stormwater. Federal NDPES law holds local government responsible for stormwater discharges. It follows naturally that local government has some responsiblity for the problems facing Lake Tahoe. Local government has a state and federally mandated responsibility to address stormwater problems - no one is "cavalierly assigning local governments responsibility" - this responsiblity is defined in federal and state water quailty law.
Regarding funding - the states and feds have invested more than $1B in Lake Tahoe's restoration to date and will likely bear the burden of the needed $1.4B in the coming years. That said, considering their stauatory responsiblity to address stormwater pollution problems, local government shouldn't be given a free pass.
Finally - do some reading about the TMDL program and determine for yourself whether the problem and proposed solutions have been "accurately scoped out".
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/tmdl/lake_tahoe/index.shtml