 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada which was ratified by the U.S. Congress. The agency is mandated to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe basin through land-use regulations and is one of only a few watershed-based regulatory agencies in the United States.
TRPA and its mission [1] are one-of-a-kind and represent an unprecedented attempt to address environmental, economic and cultural values at both regional and local levels. The agency is the lead organization responsible for creating and implementing region-wide solutions to protection. The agency is a symbol of environmental responsibility and stewardship and provides a legal means to govern the region. TRPA is recognized throughout the world [ citation needed ] for what it contributes to the science of resource protection. Much of the effort put forth is groundbreaking and the problems addressed have no textbook remedies[ citation needed ]. This is in part what makes the agency a lightning rod attracting a wide range of opinions and emotions.
The TRPA has adopted a three-pronged strategy to restore the environment of Lake Tahoe:
The regulatory program has been in place for more than 35 years and the TRPA evaluates itself every five years. While regulation is one of the pillars of the TRPA's plan, the agency also emphasizes the capital investment and scientific research components of its strategy which are embodied in the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP). [2]
TRPA is primarily an environmental agency, but recognizes the interdependency of environmental, economic and social well being in the Tahoe Region. Environmental groups, property rights advocates, business interests and numerous government agencies agree that tourism and successful, locally-owned businesses are the key to economic vitality at Lake Tahoe and are dependent upon the attractiveness of the region's environment. The TRPA Regional Plan [3] is intended to set a measured rate of residential, commercial and recreational growth, the impacts of which are controlled through mitigation measures.
The TRPA governing board consists of 15 members [4] (members shown in italics are required to reside outside of the TRPA region):
At present, the make up is composed of seven trained as attorneys (with the Executive Director licensed to practice law in Washington DC [5] ), five elected politicians, two environmentalists, and the Deputy Director from the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. [6]
Since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency must regulate how individuals develop their property within a fragile environment, controversy and criticism are no strangers. TRPA has been collecting research on the effects of development on Lake Tahoe's clarity for more than 35 years, and has set limits on the amount of land that can be covered by buildings and pavement, called land coverage, on an individual parcel (ranging from 1% in areas it deems to be highly sensitive areas to 30% in areas deemed to be least sensitive areas). The designation of sensitivity is at the sole discretion of the TRPA.
Lake Tahoe residents, the State of California, environmental groups and property rights groups have repeatedly sued TRPA to change restrictions and fees in the Tahoe Region. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The charges levied against TRPA represent a wide range of grievances and displeasure with the Agency, claiming that the agency is too powerful, abusive or biased, exclusively run by non-elected officials, or applying selective environmental data that goes far beyond their mandate of environmental protection, and asserting restrictions on residents and development of private property violate a range of laws, including the Takings Clause in the U.S. constitution.
There is also concern over the scientific evidence TRPA uses to form its regulations. For example, for more than twenty years, construction of new piers in "prime fish habitat" areas was prohibited, but studies were later released that showed some manmade structures in "feeding and escape cover" habitat areas could actually benefit fish populations.
Criticism of TRPA often falls under the category of economics. Some business owners and homeowners express concerns that they want more freedom to build or expand in order to realize the maximum value from their properties. TRPA says it works diligently to find innovative ways to allow property owners to develop their property in environmentally sensitive ways and has created programs that balance environmental impacts through mitigation, but this claim is also disputed claiming that the TRPA is unaccountable and ignores the public. Mitigation measures usually come in the form of fees which are used to fund environmental improvement and restoration projects, but there is no way for residents and businesses to verify whether the mitigation fees they paid were applied to actual environmental mitigation. Some feel that the fees amount to undue taxation, such as a per day fee for visitors renting a passenger vehicle. In 2021 this fee was $5.50 per day, [12] with the proceeds earmarked to fund public transportation, which some argue falls outside of the 1969 TRPA Charter. TRPA posts their fee schedule online [13] which shows that homeowners and businesses must pay potentially thousands of dollars in parcel improvement application fees, including site assessment fees, Information Technology fees, surveys fees, processing fees, per square footage fees, and many other static and variable fees before an individual or business can even begin to plan for improvement to their private lot. The fees have been viewed as discriminatory in practice, with only wealthy residences and businesses able to cover fees that are exorbitant in comparison to surrounding cities and counties.
In 2005, in an effort to bring all buoys on the lake into compliance with current regulations, TRPA initially proposed a buoy permitting fee of $5,000 for the first buoy and $7,500 for a second buoy. Many residents protested thinking that the TRPA did not have the power to charge taxes. Due to public opposition and guidance from the TRPA Governing Board, a new proposal was made in 2006 reducing the permitting fee to $500 for the first buoy and $1,500 for the second. If the fee is approved, the agency claims it would be used to offset the impacts to water quality and to fund a watercraft and illegal buoy enforcement program. The proposal, after two years of discussion, was supposed to be finalized in February 2007. But the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, which want the pier moratorium to continue, continued to protest the changes. Furthermore, some California government agencies continue to question the environmental impacts of more piers.
Other individuals and public interest groups feel that TRPA does not go far enough in strictly controlling development. They claim that, since Lake Tahoe belongs to everyone, property owners must take responsibility for the impacts of their development[ citation needed ]. Further, supporters of the agency's policies point out that comprehensive management strategies in communities across the nation are funded by assessing fees on the associated properties and participants who benefit the most from such impacts[ citation needed ].
Other issues the agency is criticized for are fine amounts and local representation at the agency. TRPA fine amounts are generally around $5,000 for violations like unpermitted tree-cutting. While some critics say such fines aren't large enough since a wealthy lake front owner may happily pay that much to improve their view, other critics argue that it is further evidence of TRPA's over-reaching expansion. Since TRPA is a bi-state entity with quasi-federal powers, state & local elected officials have little recourse in opposing the agency's strategies. Although half of the TRPA's 15-member Governing Board is made up of locally elected officials, there is public sentiment that they have only the courts to turn to for balance. If anyone contests the agency's decisions, they feel they are painted as against the environment. Furthermore, critics of the agency have alleged that TRPA staff represent themselves as "locals", which is actually true of most of the board and the staff, though a small percentage of staff members live outside the Tahoe basin, in nearby areas such as Carson City. Since staff are the individuals with whom most of the negotiations are engaged, and who propose nearly all agenda items the Governing Board hears, there is local sentiment that the agency serves too few and is not working for the benefit of local residents and businesses. A movement led by local property rights groups and real estate developers to have all Governing Board members elected by local residents has been pushed for several years, but has thus far been resisted by government officials and environmental groups, due to concern that environmental protection of the lake will be compromised in favor of development.
An example of the controversy the agency faces is development in the shore zone. Lake Tahoe's shore zone is where the lake meets the land. Because of its relationship to the quality of scenery, recreation, and lake clarity, the shore zone is one of the most sensitive areas in the region. The Environmental Protection Agency has designated Lake Tahoe as Outstanding National Resource Waters under the Clean Water Act. Having this special designation calls for a non-degradation standard and a high level of protection. There are only three bodies of water on the West Coast with this designation; Mono Lake in California, and Crater Lake in Oregon are the other two.
The shore zone of Lake Tahoe has a long and challenging history. Regulations affecting the construction of piers, buoys and other shore zone-related issues have been researched and debated extensively since the 1980s. The Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association and others call for fewer restrictions on development, claiming that every lake front property owner should be allowed to build a pier. Other groups, such as the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, argue that allowing hundreds of new piers will harm fish habitat and scenic quality, and will further block the public from access to beaches and will inhibit kayaking along the shore.
For more than 25 years, the TRPA has not allowed new structures such as piers in areas considered "prime fish habitat." These areas are still considered limited and fragile. However, aforementioned scientific studies were conducted over a period of 15 years that showed protective measures could be taken to reduce the impacts of additional piers on the lake and that some underwater structures actually benefited fish populations in "feed and escape cover" habitat areas. In 2005 and 2006, after 20 years of debate, the agency released an environmental document with alternatives that would allow some new development in the shore zone, but says it balanced new development with programs that increased public beach access, protected sensitive areas, and set high standards for development.
According to the agency, the shore zone example shows how TRPA attempts to serve all members of the public fairly by using the best available science and planning practices to protect Lake Tahoe and create a balance between the man made and natural environments. The agency says it understands that on some controversial issues, consensus isn't possible. But after robust collaboration between TRPA and the public, common ground can emerge to move the process forward. Even so, the shore zone changes remain in limbo.
In June 2007, the Angora Fire burned 3,100 acres (13 km2) and destroyed 254 residences and many other structures adjacent to South Lake Tahoe. A reversal of the winds as the fire approached the city limits near the "Y" (junction of US50 and 89) saved the area from a far more devastating disaster. Owners, developers' rights groups, and local real estate lobbyists immediately charged that the structures burned because of TRPA's strict environmental regulations. While inconsistent with Cal Fire regulations, TRPA field staff prohibited property owners from establishing proper defensible space around their homes and required the laying down of newly fallen and highly flammable dry pine needles to serve as erosion control in favor of lake clarity. In public hearings, TRPA countered that defensible space has always been a significant agency concern, and has always been encouraged by the agency, citing published TRPA regulations, public documents, and previous public hearings. However, in post fire hearings stating this position, those that lost their homes were so infuriated that security escorts were required to protect TRPA Staff's exit.
Prompted by local newspaper articles quoting allegations of TRPA staff forcing homeowners to pile dry pine needles and other flammable materials around their homes, and even up against the structures, creating dangerous fire hazards, state and local politicians reacted swiftly by calling for investigations into TRPA policies and staff misconduct. In July 2007, California and Nevada governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jim Gibbons signed a bi-state "Blue Ribbon Fire Commission" agreement, to investigate fire issues in the Lake Tahoe basin, including TRPA regulations that caused problems that led to the loss of hundreds of structures.
While not meeting the legal threshold of staff misconduct and detrimental agency policies, the U.S. Forest Service fire investigations in the Angora Fire investigations confirmed that most of the structures caught fire from "firebrands"—pieces of burning wood—carried in the smoke column either from neighboring structures or from nearby burning vegetation. The investigations found that a few older homes had highly flammable wooden shake roofs and inadequate fire clearance around the structures. In some cases, winter fire wood and kindling supplies were piled too close to homes. The study did state that dead and dying vegetation along Angora Creek "likely contributed" to the fire's rapid spread. Native riparian vegetation in "stream environment zones" (such as Angora Creek) in the Tahoe Region are protected as sensitive resources, and removal of vegetation from these areas is vigorously restricted by TRPA to protect damage to soils, habitat, and water quality.
While fire investigators have concluded that several factors contributed to the disastrous fire, including unburned piles from previous forest thinning projects, lack of defensible space, stockpiling of flammable materials near structures, and thick ground covers, investigators found that several structures actually burned the surrounding vegetation—not the reverse.
There is continuing disagreement regarding ground cover within 30 feet (9.1 m) of structures. In certain cases, TRPA regulations require ground cover to provide protection from soil erosion on disturbed soil. Ground cover may often be lawn or other landscaping, however site-specific native vegetation, or naturally occurring forest litter such as a thin layer of pine needles or wood chips, is generally the environmentally preferable alternative, and is more cost-effective and easier to maintain. While some groups argue that utilizing pine needles and wood chips as ground cover up to the 30-foot perimeter of a structure is a violation of California Public Resources Code 4291 requiring defensible space in California, a 0.5 to 1 inch (13 to 25 mm) covering of forest litter (duff layer), once decay has taken place, is not sufficient to carry a flame[ disputed – discuss ] intense enough to burn structures from a distance of 30-feet away[ citation needed ]. However, freshly applied pine needles remain highly flammable until decomposition has fully occurred. Regardless, TRPA staff and local fire groups are investigating possible nonflammable or flame-retardant alternatives to provide both soil protection and fire prevention. In addition, TRPA staff and board members state they are working with the local fire protection districts to simplify procedures for homeowners to implement defensible space requirements around their homes, and eliminate confusion and possible conflicts regarding TRPA erosion control requirements and defensible space requirements, and to ease restrictions on use of heavy machinery in sensitive areas near communities. However, after the Angora Fire, it took the TRPA over 15-years to clarify pine needle removal guidelines, with homeowners and businesses remaining subject to TRPA fines of $5000 or more for removing pine needles beyond 5-feet of a structure (a.k.a. Zone 0 space) until 2022 [14] as ground cover within their defensible fire space zone remained in direct contradiction to the 30-foot guidelines for defensible space (Zone 1) that was consistently recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which explicitly recommends to "remove dead or dry leaves and pine needles". [15] The TRPA requires an $83 non-refundable filing fee with any tree removal application, further slowing defensible space creation and arguably prevents lower income residents from defending their space. [16]
While investigations into the causes and effects on the Angora Fire show that allegations of staff misconduct may have occurred, and resource protection policies may not have been the root cause of the disaster, anti-TRPA sentiment remains extremely high among most residents. Many have concluded that the agency has infringed on property safety, constitutional private property rights, and impeded economic development in the Lake Tahoe region.
In August/September 2021, during the Caldor fire,[ citation needed ] government crews cut large swaths to the bare soil and aggressively thinned neighboring forests to protect the City. This emergency act lowered the fire height from 100s of feet as was seen during the Angora fire approaching the Y-area, to about fifteen feet, thus saving the City. As a result, significant tree thinning without the required TRPA permits and removal of freshly fallen pine needles to the bare ground occurred widely. Proactive techniques of applying Phos-check home defense fire retardant products to vegetation has also become more widespread. While clearly, the Angora Fire has reinvigorated the public taking hold of their own safety, the Caldor fire has cemented it.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), a 2002 United States Supreme Court case involving the regulatory power of the agency.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997) a 1997 United States Supreme Court case holding a federal court should not consider a claim against an agency before the government has reached a “final” decision. See also, Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. ___ (2021).
Kings Beach is a census-designated place (CDP) in Placer County, California, United States, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. The population was 3,563 at the 2020 census.
South Lake Tahoe is the most populous incorporated city in El Dorado County, California, United States, in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The city's population was 21,330 at the 2020 census, down from 21,403 at the 2010 census. The city, along the southern edge of Lake Tahoe, extends about 5 miles (8 km) west-southwest along U.S. Route 50, also known as Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The east end of the city, on the California–Nevada state line right next to the town of Stateline, Nevada, is mainly geared towards tourism, restaurants, hotels, and Heavenly Mountain Resort with the Nevada casinos just across the state line in Stateline. The western end of town is mainly residential, and clusters around "The Y", the intersection of US 50, State Route 89, and the continuation of Lake Tahoe Boulevard after it loses its federal highway designation.
Lake Tahoe is a freshwater lake in the Sierra Nevada of the Western United States, straddling the border between California and Nevada. Lying at 6,225 ft (1,897 m) above sea level, Lake Tahoe is the largest alpine lake in North America, and at 122,160,280 acre⋅ft (150.7 km3) it trails only the five Great Lakes as the largest by volume in the United States. Its depth is 1,645 ft (501 m), making it the second deepest in the United States after Crater Lake in Oregon.
The ecology of the Sierra Nevada, located in the U.S. states of California and Nevada, is diverse and complex. The combination of climate, topography, moisture, and soils influences the distribution of ecological communities across an elevation gradient from 500 to 14,500 feet. Biotic zones range from scrub and chaparral communities at lower elevations, to subalpine forests and alpine meadows at the higher elevations. Particular ecoregions that follow elevation contours are often described as a series of belts that follow the length of the Sierra Nevada. There are many hiking trails, paved and unpaved roads, and vast public lands in the Sierra Nevada for exploring the many different biomes and ecosystems.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), is one of the United States Supreme Court's more recent interpretations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case dealt with the question of whether a moratorium on construction of individual homes imposed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency fell under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and whether the landowners therefore should receive just compensation as required by that clause. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was represented by future Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Court, finding that the moratorium did not constitute a taking. It reasoned that there was an inherent difference between the acquisition of property for public use and the regulation of property from private use. The majority concluded that the moratorium at issue in this case should be classified as a regulation of property from private use and therefore no compensation was required.
Fallen Leaf Lake is a mountain lake located in El Dorado County, California, near the California–Nevada state border, about one mile south west of the much larger Lake Tahoe. It is approximately aligned north-to-south and oval in shape, measuring approximately 2.9 miles (4.6 km) on the long axis and 0.9 miles (1.4 km) on the short axis. The lake was created by at least two glaciers that traveled northward down the Glen Alpine Valley. If the glacier had continued instead of stopping, Fallen Leaf Lake would be a bay of Lake Tahoe, similar to nearby Emerald Bay. A terminal moraine is visible at the north end of the lake on the northeast edge.
The Sierra Nevada Alliance is a network of conservation groups encompassing 24 watersheds of the 650 kilometer-long Sierra Nevada in California and Nevada. Beginning in 1993, the Alliance protects and restores Sierra Nevada lands, watersheds, wildlife and communities.
The Upper Truckee River is a stream that flows northward from the western slope of Red Lake Peak in Alpine County, California to Lake Tahoe via the Truckee Marsh in South Lake Tahoe, California. The river flows northeasterly and is 23 miles (37 km) long. It is Lake Tahoe's largest tributary.
The Angora Lakes are two small freshwater lakes in the Sierra Nevada and Lake Tahoe Watershed ~1,200 ft (370 m) in elevation above Fallen Leaf Lake and Lake Tahoe. It is the location of the Angora Lakes Resort. The lakes were named for a herd of Angora goats that used to graze in the area.
The Angora Fire was a 2007 wind-driven wildfire in El Dorado County, California. It started near North Upper Truckee Road subdivision near Angora Lakes, Fallen Leaf Lake, Echo Lake and South Lake Tahoe, California around 2:15 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, 2007, as a result of an illegal campfire. As of July 2, 2007, the fire was 100 percent contained, and 100 percent control was achieved on July 10. The fire burned 3,100 acres (12.5 km2), destroyed 242 residences and 67 commercial structures, and damaged 35 other homes. At the peak of the fire, there were as many as 2,180 firefighters involved in battling the blaze. The fire cost $13.5 million to fight and caused at least $150 million in property damage.
A defensible space, in the context of fire control, is a natural and/or landscaped area around a structure that has been maintained and designed to reduce fire danger. The practice is sometimes called firescaping. "Defensible space" is also used in the context of wildfires, especially in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This defensible space reduces the risk that fire will spread from one area to another, or to a structure, and provides firefighters access and a safer area from which to defend a threatened area. Firefighters sometimes do not attempt to protect structures without adequate defensible space, as it is less safe and less likely to succeed.
Byron D. Sher is an American Democratic politician. He served in the California State Senate from 1996 to 2004, prior to which, he served in the California State Assembly between 1980 and 1996. Sher was also a longtime professor at Stanford Law School. He served as the California Senate Rules Committee appointee to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency from 2009 to 2012.
Homewood Mountain Resort is a ski area located on the west shore of Lake Tahoe in the state of California, a few miles south of Tahoe City in the town of Homewood. It has 1,260 acres (510 ha) of skiable terrain and eight lifts. While it currently does not offer lodging on site, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been submitted to the regional planning commission to allow for the development of a resort inclusive of a hotel, condominiums, and various other additions. Since 2006, JMA Ventures, a San Francisco Bay Area developer, has owned and operated the ski area.
Martis Valley is a geographic area of 70 square miles (180 km2) in the United States, extending northward from the North Shore of Lake Tahoe, California, to the west of the California-Nevada border. It is located in Placer and Nevada Counties and is bisected by Martis Creek which flows north to the Truckee River.
A fire-adapted community is defined by the United States Forest Service as "a knowledgeable and engaged community in which the awareness and actions of residents regarding infrastructure, buildings, landscaping, and the surrounding ecosystem lessens the need for extensive protection actions and enables the community to safely accept fire as a part of the surrounding landscape."
Edwin Lewis Z'berg was a Democratic member of the California State Assembly representing the 9th district from 1958 to 1974, and 4th district from 1974 until his death in 1975. He served in the United States Navy during the World War II era. As chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, he crafted legislation that established open space, funded state park acquisitions, created a workable system of state timber management, and established off-road vehicle policies. In the 1960s and early 70s he led California's actions to protect Lake Tahoe's environment, authoring a bistate regional authority bill that created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, TRPA. He was unstinting in efforts to strengthen TRPA's protections of the lake. Ed Z'berg Sugar Pine Point State Park on Tahoe's west shore is named for him, as are a neighborhood and park in southwestern Sacramento near Interstate 5.
Ed Z'berg Sugar Pine Point State Park is a state park in California in the United States. It occupies nearly two miles of the western shore of Lake Tahoe and a total of about 1,000 hectares of forested mountains in El Dorado County. Originally called Sugar Pine Point State Park, its name was changed in 2003 to honor Edwin L. Z'berg, a California state assemblyman who specialized in environmental legislation and worked to develop state parks and other natural areas.
Independence Lake is a natural glacial lake in the Sierra Nevada of California. At an elevation of 6,949 feet (2,118 m) in the upper reaches of the Truckee River basin, it has been less affected by development than most lakes in the area. The Nature Conservancy owns a 2,325 acres (9.41 km2) parcel of land around it, which it manages privately as the Independence Lake Preserve for the purposes of conservation and low-impact recreation.
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case pertaining to the regulatory authority of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and its impact on private property rights. Bernadine Suitum owned a parcel of land near Lake Tahoe, which she intended to develop. However, TRPA imposed stringent regulations to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Under these regulations, Suitum was denied the permit to develop her property because it was classified as unsuitable for development based on the environmental criteria. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the ripeness of Suitum's claim. The Court concluded that Suitum's takings claim was ripe for adjudication, emphasizing that Suitum was not required to attempt to sell her TDRs before her claim could be considered ripe. The Court based its reasoning on the immediate and direct impact of the regulatory action on her property rights, deeming further administrative actions unnecessary.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
