Highlights of the Nevada Legislature (This Year)

So it's over. After 120 days of intrigue, drama, coaltion building, infighting, progress, backslides, cheers, tears, and so much more, we finally have a chance to reflect on what happened during the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature. So now that we have a chance to step back and reflect, let's take one more look at the 2013 Nevada Legislature.

Perhaps one of the greatest highlights of the session was the passage of SJR 13, the constitutional amendment to repeal the Question 2 marriage ban and enact marriage equality in Nevada. Here, the conventional wisdom of what had been considered "possible" in Carson City finally burst as we saw an outbreak of true courage. After the sharing of much heart-wrenching personal testimony, equality ultimately won the day... For now. We just have to do this all over again in two years... Unless federal courts deliver a big surprise in the coming weeks and months.



Another surprising moment was the second round of passage for SJR 15, the constitutional amendment to remove multinational mining corporations' sweetheart deal from the Nevada Constitution. While SJR 15 first passed in 2011, it looked to be on very shaky ground early this year as mining industry lobbyists doubled down to kill it. But then, a major twist of fate occurred as a prominent Republican (??!!) stepped forward to snatch a politically convenient way to kill IP 1 embrace mining tax reform. Yet even as his own mining tax scheme proposal died an ugly death, new life was quickly breathed into SJR 15. And after another shocking outbreak of courage in Carson City, SJR 15 ultimately sailed through the Legislature and onto our ballots next year.

And that wasn't all. The Nevada Legislature also surprised many by easily passing SB 303, the bill that creates driver's authorization cards for undocumented immigrants and other Nevadans with difficulties accessing personal documents (like domestic violence victims). The success was found in framing this as a critical driver safety issue... And in some Nevada Republicans' desire to fix their "Latin@ problem". So even as Nevada Republicans in Congress start succumbing to their toxic "TEA" and complicate efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, the Nevada Legislature found one way to work around their obstruction.

But wait, there's even more! SB 374, the bill to authorize medical marijuana dispensaries in Nevada, finally passed at the last minute. The state has been facing legal trouble over confusing current law, so there was an opening to act. Yet while another bill to fully legalize marijuana never saw the light of day, a surprisingly bipartisan coalition for medical marijuana emerged. And after a surprisingly bizarre last minute hiccup, the bill finally passed on the final day and headed to Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) desk (where he has yet to sign or veto).

And finally, we saw some encouraging environmental progress in the passage of SB 229. Like SJR 15, this bill had some troubling history behind it. In 2011, the Legislature agreed to SB 271, a bill meant to tear apart the regulatory framework protecting Lake Tahoe. And even worse, it was done simply because of juiced up power players' greed and disgusting backroom politics. That's why Governor Sandoval initially threatened to veto SB 229 (and keep 2011's SB 271 on the books). But after California stepped in and threatened to "go it alone" to protect Lake Tahoe, Governor Sandoval soon flip-flopped and embraced SB 229. And all of a sudden, Nevada then decided to keep Tahoe blue after all (yet it remains to be seen just how much blue and green will ultimately remain there).

And there's even more to discuss. But if I keep writing, I won't ever stop. So we'll leave it here for now, and we'll soon pick up where we left off in reliving the most memorable moments of the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature.

Far from Finished

So this has been one hell of a Memorial Day weekend for many of us. It's especially been an awkwardly rough weekend for those citizen activists who worked tirelessly on AB 230 and improving teen safety. Last Friday, PLAN's Bob Fulkerson and Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood [NAPPA]'s Elisa Cafferata provided further perspective on what had just happened on "Ralston Reports".



Last Friday, we saw plenty of raw emotion explode all over the progressive blogosphere and social media. And yes, it even happened right here. I couldn't help it. I was so stunned, so verklempt.

Since then, we've had a chance to step back and notice the larger picture of what happened. For a "so angry one must laugh" take, check out Laura Martin's GIF loaded explanation. And if more catharsis is needed, check out Sin City Siren.



So now, let's take a moment and discuss the big picture some more. For so long, we've become accustomed to seeing the powers that be in Carson City as Kings and Queens of Pain who continually disappoint by agreeing to continue the failed status quo. That's actually a reason why We the People will be deciding on change at the ballot box next year.

Yet this session, we've also seen something we had not been accustomed to experiencing in Carson City: a slew of progressive victories. SJR 13 (marriage equality), SJR 15 (mining tax reform), SB 229 (saving Lake Tahoe), SB 303 (driver's authorization cards), and more progressive priorities have actually been advancing and winning in the Nevada Legislature. At times, activists have pinched each other to see if this is for real.

Yet while the bubble of happiness occasionally leaked with reminders of continuing fiscal madness, it didn't completely burst until Friday. The shocking demise of AB 230 reminded progressive activists of the continuing headwinds hindering further progress. How on earth could such common sense legislation aimed at protecting teens face such a ghastly demise?

It comes down to this: There's still a Republican Governor. And there are not enough votes in #NVLeg to override his veto(es). So it limits opportunities. Governor Sandoval had to be shamed into backing SB 229 and SB 303, and his action wasn't needed on SJR 13 and SJR 15. Yet on AB 230, he dug in his heels and refused to budge on his opposition... To educating kids on how to prevent teen pregnancies and spreading dangerous infections.

Could Senate Democrats have joined their Assembly colleagues in passing the bill anyway? Perhaps so. It would have been vetoed by the Governor, and perhaps it would have been fodder for the coming campaign cycle. (And it may still be anyway.)

Should Senate Democratic leaders have done this? It's often been recommended to "do what's right and let the consequences follow". I can't help but wonder why they couldn't have at least laid the blame directly on Governor Sandoval and shown everyone why comprehensive sex education couldn't become law in Nevada. Instead, there's no more bill... And these very Democratic leaders are being blamed for the bill's demise. Was it really good politics to treat good policy so badly?

Yet with that being said, it still would have resulted in AB 230's death. So what then? As NAPPA's Elisa Cafferata explained on Friday, there's still the possibility of parts of AB 230 being resurrected and amended into other bills. Perhaps this way, it will be harder for Governor Sandoval to veto it all way.

But whatever happens to the remains of AB 230 in the final days of the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature, progressive organizers and activists will again have to figure out how to regroup and move forward on this and other issues left by the wayside in Carson City. As we've learned the hard way on the above mentioned victories, they were all long and hard fought. They didn't come overnight, and they all met plenty of resistance along the way.



So what made the difference? You did. We did. The grassroots did. It took relentless advocacy to get us to the point where we are now. And clearly, we're still far from finished.

All too often, leaders in Carson City need for the grassroots to lead the way. That's clearly the case now. Regardless of what happens in the coming days, we're far from finished. One election can't change everything. Not even one legislative session can. It will take longer to achieve victories on issues like sex education and public education funding, but activists shouldn't throw in the towel just because of screwy politics in Carson City... Far from it.

We're far from finished.

SB 229 Secures Final Passage, Will Repeal "Trash Tahoe Bill"

This week has truly been a wild one in Carson City. We've seen plenty of action as the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature comes to a close. And yes, we even saw major progress on saving Lake Tahoe.

The Assembly voted 40-1 to pass SB229 which repeals a law passed by the 2011 Legislature that paved the way for Nevada to exit the Tahoe Compact created in the late 1960s to regulate development and oversee environmental controls in the Tahoe Basin that straddles Nevada and California. The Senate passed the measure in April.

"We have found new ways to cooperate, and SB229's repeal of the timetable of withdraw sends a strong message that Nevada supports working together with California to protect the lake," Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, said while urging his colleagues' support on the floor. [...]

Bobzien urged lawmakers to support a plan to withdraw Nevada's threat to leave the Tahoe Compact with California. The Assembly approved the measure 40-1. (AP Photo/Cathleen Allison)

The bill was ushered through the Legislature after Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and California Gov. Jerry Brown recently announced an agreement to protect Lake Tahoe's delicate ecosystem while also considering the economy when making land use decisions.

"Tahoe is a natural beauty we have to be proud of in our state and I'm glad everybody could come together to work together," said Nevada Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas. "I'm glad that Tahoe will stay blue and we have good compromise, and I'm glad the governors worked together as well."

"The timetable for withdrawal from the compact was just always a problem," Bobzien said. "The forum for cooperating has always been the compact, so if you make the statement that the compact should be dissolved, how do you expect people to cooperate."

This has been a long time coming. In 2011, the Legislature voted for SB 271. And in turn, that launched a protracted war with California as environmental advocates on both sides of the state line were horrified by this brazen attempt to dismantle safeguards meant to preserve Tahoe.

So this session, SB 229 was introduced to repeal the 76th session's SB 271 and preserve regulatory safeguards for Lake Tahoe. Yet even as SB 229 passed the State Senate last month, its future remained uncertain as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) made veto threats. After all, since corporate developers pushed Tahoe to the brink, they seemed hungry for more.

But then, we saw a surprising twist of fate. Earlier this month, Governor Sandoval announced an agreement with California Governor Jerry Brown (D) to pass SB 229/repeal SB 271. Apparently, California's threats of unilateral regulation and the continuing law suit against the recent revisions to Lake Tahoe's master plan proved to be too much for Governor Sandoval to ignore.

And now, we have overwhelming Assembly passage of SB 229. And under the agreement secured from California Governor Brown, Nevada Governor Sandoval has reversed his stance and promised to sign it into law. While many questions remain over the future of oversight and over-development at Lake Tahoe, at least the lake's advocates can celebrate the end to the all out assault on the entire regulatory framework meant to save Tahoe.

So What's Next for Tahoe?

So far this year, we've been wondering about the future of Lake Tahoe. While SB 229 passed the Nevada State Senate last month and seemed to be moving in the Assembly, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) did not look amused. Rather, he seemed content with the continuing threat of Nevada pulling out of TRPA, the agency that oversees development and environmental stewardship in the Lake Tahoe region.

Yet today, we saw a stunning new development. Earlier today, Governor Sandoval announced a new deal with California Governor Jerry Brown (D) on the future of Lake Tahoe.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and California Gov. Jerry Brown issued a joint statement Tuesday renewing their commitment to do what’s best “for the environment and economy of the Lake Tahoe region.”

Under the agreement amendments will be introduced to bills in the Nevada and California state legislatures that repeal Nevada’s planned withdrawal from the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact in 2015 and California’s proposal to re-establish a California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 2014.

The governors also agree to require consideration of economic conditions when adopting and implementing regional plans in the Tahoe Basin that straddles both states.

And the Nevada Conservation League had this to say on today's big development.

“The people of Nevada and California made it clear that protection of Lake Tahoe is a high priority,” said Kyle Davis, political director of the Nevada Conservation League. “We want to thank Governors Brown and Sandoval, Majority Leader Denis, Speaker Kirkpatrick and all of the other Nevada and California legislators that worked to make sure that both states were committed to the future of the lake.”

“We have been working all year to find a solution that would make both states happy while also preserving strong environmental regulation and protection for Lake Tahoe by keeping intact the Tahoe Compact,” said Darcie Goodman-Collins. “This agreement does just that. We hope for swift passage through both legislatures so that Tahoe’s communities can move forward with some certainty about their regulatory environment.”

So finally, the threat of obliterating oversight of development at Lake Tahoe is finally coming to an end. After 2 years of threats to the lake, all for the sake of corporate greed and political payback, some sanity may finally be returning to Carson City. So game over?

Maybe not. The latest update to the Tahoe Compact still faces a federal law suit. And environmental activists are still concerned about all the development TRPA has already been greenlighting for the region.

So perhaps SB 271 has already served its purpose...

BTW, SB 229 ("Save Tahoe Bill") Also Passed Yesterday.

Oh, yes. That's right. We have even more hot Nevada Legislature news this morning!

We've been closely following SB 229 here. That's "The Save Tahoe Bill" that stands to repeal 2011's SB 271 and fully reinstate Nevada's commitment to cooperate with California and the federal government to preserve & protect the Lake Tahoe. Earlier this month, SB 229 passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

And then, there was last night. Shortly after another closely watched Senate bill passed late last night, SB 229 then passed in a strictly party line 11-10 vote. All the Democrats voted in favor, while all the Republicans voted against.

Nonetheless, it passed. And it's now heading to the Assembly. We'll see soon if more legislators are willing to correct an embarrassing mistake.

Oh, and there's also this. Yesterday was Earth Day. And really, what better way is there for Nevada to show commitment to smart environmental stewardship than to restore our commitment to cherishing one of our greatest natural treasures?

Assembly Members, take notice.

SB 229 "Save Tahoe Bill" Passes Committee

Earlier today, we discussed the ongoing saga over the fate of Lake Tahoe and the regulatory agency (TRPA) that protects it. In March, SB 229 was introduced to repeal SB 271, the bill passed in 2011 that allows Nevada to withdraw from TRPA if it "goes too far" in protecting Lake Tahoe from overdevelopment and other forms of environmental harm. And today, SB 229 also had its ultimate day in committee.

Just minutes ago, the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted 3-2 in favor of SB 229. Senators James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) and Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) voted against SB 229. Meanwhile, Senators Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley), Mark Manendo (D-Paradise), and Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) all voted in favor.

So SB 229 passed committee, and it's now going to the full Senate.

So what happens next? We're not quite sure yet. There may be enough votes in the Senate to pass SB 229. And there may even be enough votes in the Assembly. However, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) has recently reiterated his support for 2011's SB 271... Which means he opposes 2013's SB 229.

But at least for now, SB 229 will live to see another day.

Why Aren't We Disturbed by This?

Late last month, we discussed an important environmental bill in the Nevada Legislature, SB 229. This bill is out to repeal SB 271, the controversial bill passed in 2011 that threatened Nevada's withdrawl from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA is the enforcement mechanism of the compact between California and Nevada (and overseen by the federal government) to protect Lake Tahoe.

In June 2011, we noted the immense amount of juice that the lobbying firm R&R Partners has over Nevada Government. It has juice in the Legislature. And it has juice with the Governor. And is it any coincidence that R&R pushed hard for SB 271's passage? Oh yes, and don't forget that R&R represents various casinos and developers who are interested in more development at Lake Tahoe.

Fast forward to December 2012. By that time, TRPA had a new Regional Plan for the first time since 1987. And surprise, the new Regional Plan allows for more development around the lake. Yet when Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) signaled his support for rescinding SB 271 (he oversaw the revision of the original bill in 2011), the Nevada Conservation League signaled willingness to work with the new Regional Plan so long as SB 271 is repealed and the threat of the bi-state Tahoe Compact's destruction is withdrawn. However, other environmentalists, like the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, filed a federal law suit to scrap the new Regional Plan and reinstate stronger protections of Tahoe that are in line with the original Compact, along with the approval to it given by Congress in 1980.

Fast forward to this week. New controversy has arisen over testimony recently heard on SB 229 in Carson City. Earlier this month, the State Senate held a hearing and TRPA Board Member Steve Robinson testified against it. Why would Robinson testify against a bill written to drop the threat of abolishing his own agency? It turns out that Steve Robinson has a conflict of interest.

Robinson was testifying on Senate Bill 229, a measure backed by environmentalists that would preserve the bi-state compact by repealing the 2011 law allowing Nevada to withdraw from the TRPA if changes aren’t made to ease development around the lake.

The hearing highlighted Robinson’s dual role as both lobbyist and TRPA board member — a role that environmentalists say represents an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to protecting Lake Tahoe.

Robinson is the former government affairs director for R&R Partners, one of the largest lobbying firms in Nevada that was retained by Tahoe businesses to shepherd through the 2011 law, Senate Bill 271. Robinson is no longer an employee of R&R Partners, but is contracted with them to lobby for two mining companies. [...]

“Given the role R&R played in passing SB 271, it certainly concerns me,” said Kyle Davis, political director for the Nevada Conservation League, of Robinson’s dual role. “He’s been very good at making it clear when he’s working on TRPA issues and when he’s working on R&R issues. But the TRPA issues are completely intertwined with what R&R does. I don’t know how you keep the two separate.”

Neither do I, especially when R&R is actively working to keep this cloud of uncertainty over TRPA, and maybe even let it fall apart completely, in order to please its clients. After all, why let some big, silly lake get in the way of lucrative business?

As we explained last month, this is actually foolish thinking. Tourism and commerce at Tahoe ultimately rely on the lake's clarity and the overall environmental health of the region. Without a blue lake and nearby wildlife, who would want to visit Tahoe? Think about that.

I guess the R&R and its clients are not. And to be fair, that's not really what they're about. They just care about their bottom lines.

So why let them dictate the terms of preservation in and around Lake Tahoe? This is why the Compact was originally drawn in 1968, and why Congress gave the Compact its blessing in 1980. And this is why TRPA is supposed to exist. TRPA is supposed to protect Lake Tahoe, not private developers who want to build too much there.

Nevada risks breaching the trust of California, blowing up TRPA, and losing a very costly law suit because of the greed of a few companies and the immense juice of one lobbying firm in our state's government. Think about that. Why aren't we more disturbed by this?

For Green & Green ($), We Need to Keep Lake Tahoe Blue.

How important is being green? Over the weekend, the Reno Gazette Journal's web site ran this blog item about Reno businesses seeing green (as in $) in going green.

“Sustainability is very important for job attraction,” [Mike] Kazmierski [President and CEO of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada] said. “Companies are looking for communities that embrace sustainability. It sets an image of an environmentally friendly community, it’s attractive to young professionals, and it speaks to clean air and water and to the quality of life.”

And being environmentally friendly speaks to a company’s bottom line.

“Employees like to work for businesses that are environmentally friendly, so you attract a different kind of employee,” Kazmierski said.

“Customers want to deal with businesses that are environmentally friendly so you might grow in a different way that you didn’t expect. … It’s not just fluff, it’s a decision businesses need to make to stay competitive in the years ahead.”

I guess a growing number of companies throughout Nevada are "seeing the light" in finding profitability in social responsibility. That's nice. So when will certain developers looking to pave paradise in Lake Tahoe realize this?

In 2011, the Nevada Legislature passed SB 271. It's also known around these parts as "The Trash Tahoe Bill". That's because this bill threatened to withdraw Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) isn't weakened enough to allow for massive new development around the lake.

Last December, talk was brewing of repealing SB 271. After all, a new agreement on TRPA was reached. And now, we finally have SB 229.

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs introduced Senate Bill 229 on Monday. The bill would completely repeal 2011’s Senate Bill 271, which threatens to pull Nevada out of the bi-state planning agency in October 2015 if certain changes to the agency aren’t made. SB 271 authorizes Nevada’s governor to postpone the withdrawal until October 2017 under certain circumstances.

One of the most significant changes sought by SB 271 was the passage of an updated regional plan guiding development and land use throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The TRPA’s Governing Board passed its Regional Plan Update in December. The Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore sued to block the plan’s implementation last month. The environmental groups believe rules in the new plan will not accomplish TRPA’s environmental goals and will cause a new era of over-development at the lake. Proponents of the RPU contend the new rules will help ease burdensome restrictions on basin residents and businesses, while helping advance protection of Lake Tahoe.

The League to Save Lake Tahoe and Nevada Conservation League have urged legislators to repeal SB 271, especially in light of the RPU’s passage. Maintaining TRPA’s Compact is key to protecting the lake, according to the groups.

“Although the passage of SB 271 was a black eye for Nevada, we are committed to make sure that it does not result in the destruction of the Tahoe Planning Compact and the health of the lake,” the Conservation League wrote in a statement this week.

Back in February, Nevada Conservation League's Kyle Davis hinted at this strategy when he appeared on "To the Point" with Anjeanette Damon.

(Go to 13:00 for the Tahoe segment.)



Since SB 271's passage, Nevada has landed into the political and environmental hot seat. California, the other state covered by the current TRPA, is considering a "contingency plan" should Nevada follow through in pulling out of TRPA. Basically, the California Legislature is debating legislation to set up its own environmental stewardship plan for Lake Tahoe if Nevada allows SB 271 to stand.

Meanwhile, California officials began setting up a contingency plan in case the bi-state TRPA is dismantled. The California legislation is authored by the Senate leader [Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento] and by Sen. Fran Pavley, an Agoura Hills Democrat, who often takes a lead role in California environmental issues. About two-thirds of Lake Tahoe is in California.

Their bill, SB 630, would set up a California TRPA with a nine-member board to regulate development on the California side of the lake, the largest alpine lake in North America. Appointees would be drawn from the boards of supervisors in Placer and El Dorado counties, the Tahoe City Council and members of the public. The Assembly speaker and Senate leader each would have the authority appoint two members.

“California must have a plan in place to protect Lake Tahoe," Pavley said in the statement. "Due to unilateral action taken by the state of Nevada, the governance structure that has served Lake Tahoe for over four decades is now in jeopardy. We have sought to partner with the state of Nevada on this issue, and still see that as the best way forward.”

On the Nevada side, if the bi-state TRPA is dissolved, that state’s regulatory authority would be handled by a Nevada TRPA, which is poised to be set up under the provisions of the pullout bill.

And that's not all. While California is responding to Nevada's threat of unilateral deregulation with unilateral regulation, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and other grassroots environmental activists are going to court. Oh yes, that's right. They've filed suit to challenge the new TRPA compact. In their eyes, the new TRPA compact itself allows for overdevelopment at the cost of the well-being of the lake and its wildlife.

“In 1980, Congress, along with the states of California and Nevada, specifically entrusted a
regional body to oversee all environmental protection and land use at Lake Tahoe, including
project approvals, to ensure that local governments do not allow runaway development,” said
Trent Orr, attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, which represents the
conservation groups. “The 1980 Compact requires TRPA to approve all projects within the
region, and to establish minimum regional standards for project approval. They can’t legally cede
that power and leave it to the local governments that failed to protect Tahoe in the past. There is
no reason to believe that cash-strapped local governments would adopt and enforce adequate
environmental protection measures in the face of lucrative development proposals.” [...]

“This new plan fails to recognize that an increase in buildings, rooftops, and pavement will mean
an increase in the amount of polluted rain and snowmelt - - runoff that flows directly into the
Lake,” said Laurel Ames of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club in California. “Stormwater from
pavement and roads is the leading cause of the Lake’s loss of clarity. Allowing more pavement
and roads seriously undermines efforts to clean up the once pristine lake.”

The revised plan also allows local governments to set development regulations that do not meet
minimum regional standards, including standards for how much land can be paved, or
“covered.” This violates the Compact’s requirement that TRPA establish “a minimum standard
applicable throughout the region.”

“This is a wrenching departure from past practice and is not in line with the spirit or law of the
bi-state Compact created to protect the lake,” said David von Seggren of the Toiyabe Sierra Club
in Nevada. “The people of Nevada, just like the people of California, care about the ecological
health of Lake Tahoe. Rather than weakening the Compact or threatening to pull out completely,
our leaders should be urging TRPA to develop the region in a way that not only protects the
ecosystem but actually improves it.”

In 2011, proponents of SB 271 claimed this bill was needed to cut through "excessive red tape" while allowing for updated environmental standards. Instead, it's created a legal nightmare. TRPA must now fight a federal law suit thanks to a revision in the compact that was exacerbated by SB 271. Meanwhile in Sacramento, California's Legislature is now considering retaliatory legislation should Nevada keep SB 271 and essentially kill TRPA as we know it. Let's face it, this has officially become a hot mess.

SB 271 was supposed to solve a problem. Instead, it's been creating new problems for Lake Tahoe and the State of Nevada. While local environmental groups disagree on whether the new TRPA compact is acceptable, they all agree SB 271 can't be allowed to wreak any more havoc on Lake Tahoe.

As a top tourist destination, Lake Tahoe is critical to the economic health of Northern Nevada as well as the environmental well being of the region. Without a clear, blue lake, can the Reno area still count on the millions of tourists and their dollars which flow through the region? I doubt it.

So if Nevada truly cares about green and green, then the Legislature should consider adopting SB 229 to repeal SB 271 and put an end to the legal mayhem that threatens the future of Lake Tahoe. Do we really want to risk losing visitors to Tahoe? And do we want to risk forever losing one of Nevada's greatest natural treasures? Think about it.