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...

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.

An End to "Trash Tahoe"? Or the Start of a New Battle?

So after a long and very contentious battle over the future of Lake Tahoe, an agreement has finally been reached over how to plan for its future.

California and Nevada reached a historic agreement over Lake Tahoe this week with the passage of an extensive plan designed to shape development at the lake for years to come.

The Tahoe Regional Planning's Governing Board approved an update to its 1987 Regional Plan by a 12-1 vote late Wednesday afternoon. California board member Mara Bresnick was the lone vote against the plan update, which has been under discussion for the better part of a decade. [...]

“The reality is we need to take the old that is not working and redesign it so it is working to the benefit of the lake,” said Douglas County Commissioner and Governing Board member Nancy McDermid during the board meeting at Harveys Lake Tahoe.

Supporters of the new agreement claim that this heralds a new era of economic growth and environmental protection for the Tahoe region. After all, the Regional Plan hasn't been updated in 25 years. And older developments by and near the lake may be more harmful to the lake with their excessive runoff reducing the lake's clarity.

However, not everyone is buying this. In fact, some environmental groups are already vowing to fight this. There may even a be a law suit brewing.

TRPA’s latest plan, approved today, delegates critical environmental protections back to local jurisdictions, leaving many to wonder if a Tahoe on development steroids will soon turn into a series of corporate resorts. Without better protections, the scenic Tahoe loved by so many will likely morph into one with more paving and less open space, new eight to ten story hotels, and mega-size recreation resorts built on acres of once-pristine lands. The result will be a murkier lake and fewer views of the mountains and the lake as local communities add three and four story buildings along the roadways.

“This plan is based on the belief that the pathway to environmental improvement is through economic development. There is definitely some merit in encouraging development to replace aging commercial buildings and parking lots. But putting all of TRPA’s eggs in that basket is too risky for the golden goose that lays those eggs—Lake Tahoe,” said Bob Anderson, Chair of the Lake Tahoe Sierra Club Group.

Wendy Park, an attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, agrees that the new plan poses new and bigger risks. “Earthjustice has represented local interests and conservation groups in the past to protect the lake and regions around its shoreline from unbridled construction and development. The population of California is growing rapidly and Lake Tahoe needs stronger, not weaker, protections to stay the very special mountain lake everyone cherishes,” Park said.

Last Friday, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) stated his support for rescinding SB 271 as an agreement for a new Regional Plan has finally been reached. Perhaps the more cynically minded are thinking that it won't matter now that the damage may already be done. After all, the often omnipotent looking "gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex" revamped SB 271 and pushed for its final passage in order to weaken environmental protection at Lake Tahoe in order to clear the way for more development. And now, it looks like they finally snatched what they wanted with the new Regional Plan.

To be fair, not all environmentalists are planning to fight this. The Nevada Conservation League has signaled it can live with the new plan.

“I think the plan is certainly a compromise,” said Kyle Davis, political director for the Nevada Conservation League. That group joined the League to Save Lake Tahoe in representing conservation interests in discussions last summer led by Nevada Conservation and Natural Resources Director Leo Drozdoff and California Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird designed to reach consensus over the hardest sticking points that had the plan at impasse at the time.

“There’s a lot we don’t like about it. There’s a lot that is an improvement,” Davis said. “I think there are enough safeguards to protect the lake but I think there is a lot more that could have been put in place for environmental gain.”

Nearly everyone was in agreement over the plan needing an update. What has been so contentious is how much more development to allow in the Tahoe region. Will the lake ultimately benefit from an "extreme makeover" of the lakeside communities that will allow for more energy efficient and less runoff producing development? Or will the lake be choked to death by the rush of real estate developers to fill every last acre of land with mega-resorts, mid-rise condos, bigger mansions & golf courses, and shopping malls?



Ultimately, time will tell where this new agreement takes Lake Tahoe. It just looks like this story hasn't ended just yet.

Trouble at Tahoe

The Lake Tahoe Summit is today. And already, tension is brewing. As we discussed early this month, everything from climate change to shady Carson City "deal making" has further threatened Tahoe and muddied the lake's future (literally!).

And in case that isn't bad enough, we're seeing political tension brewing up there as well. At the last minute, Shelley Berkley decided to attend the summit. She was planning not to attend after Dean Heller declined to offer her any speech time, but apparently she was later able to secure some "break out time" today with key local Tahoe region leaders.

Yet while many media pundits will be viewing this for the horserace related antics, this actually caught my eye.

The impacts of climate change, including generally warming waters and lessening of mixing of lake waters, appear conducive to high populations of algae, said Geoffrey Schladow, director of the University of California, Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

Changing ecological trends are not the only challenge ahead. Another is diminishing funding in the face of the country’s economic troubles.

At last year’s summit, U.S. Sen. Dean Heller — host of this year’s event — spoke of a “new reality” as government funding to pay for costly restoration projects at the lake dries up.

“Quite simply, we need to learn to do more with less,” the Republican lawmaker said at the time.

Yet again, Dean Heller is telling Nevadans to "learn to do more with less" while he keeps looking out for his political patrons. And what's really callous about this is that Northern Nevada's economy is very dependent on the health and well being of Lake Tahoe. If Tahoe isn't looking all that clear, then neither is the future of Northern Nevada's economy.

It's saddening, but it really shouldn't be surprising. This really is Dean Heller's MO. Now that we're in an election year, Heller is going through all the motions of "caring about the future of Lake Tahoe". But when push comes to shove, he doesn't really want to take action on climate change, ensure a smart path forward for sustainable development, or even extend common courtesy with other members of Nevada's Congressional Delegation. We'll have to see if anything beyond a politically convenient photo-op is accomplished today in Stateline.

Turn of the Tide at Lake Tahoe?

Earlier this week, Senator Dean Heller's office announced the 16th Annual Lake Tahoe Summit happening August 13 in Stateline. There will certainly be plenty to talk about this year. Climate change certainly poses a greater risk to the region than ever seen before. And in case that isn't enough to tackle at this year's summit, there's another issue that may just rise back to the surface.

Last year, we saw the passage of SB 271, which is also known as "The Trash Tahoe Bill". Why? Oh, it just endangers the entire ecosystem of the region just to enrich "juiced up" corporate developers and pay back political favors.

The bill was originally authored by John Lee. Oh yes, you heard me right. John Lee made SB 271 happen.

But now, all of a sudden, John Lee is no longer in the picture. And to complicate matters further, California has refused to agree to the terms of SB 271. And without agreement from California, there can be no agreement on a badly needed and much delayed new Tahoe Compact to guide future development.

So all of this just barely lies beneath the surface now, but may just end up at the forefront once the Tahoe Summit begins. Climate change has already become a serious problem for Lake Tahoe, and the continuation of SB 271 further imperils the lake. Perhaps Dean Heller had something else in mind when he announced this year's summit, but it looks like we'll have a real opportunity this month to discuss the serious issues affecting the future of Lake Tahoe... And the recent turn of events has made this more possible than ever before.

Finding Elizabeth Halseth: Postscript (& Connecting the Dots)

So today, Chuck Muth has one more batch of Elizabeth Halseth's dirty laundry to expose. And jeez, it's a real doozy. And it gets really personal really fast.

Again, I don't really like talking about others' private lives. But in the case of Halseth, where she often injected private morality into the public sphere, she essentially asked for this. And by using her private life to make excuses for not fulfilling her public duties, Halseth also a lack of interest in showing any public morality. Sorry, but who can really fault Muth for "going there"?

And this really goes to a deeper core problem with our Legislature: When did this become "the norm" for governance in our state?

Right before Halseth's sudden resignation overshadowed every other trending #NVLeg story, we were again seeing the usual Sturm und Drang on a Sun piece on three Assembly Democrats not following Secretary of State Ross Miller's guidelines on reporting campaign expenses done while working in Carson City. As usual, queue the "revolutionaries" yielding pitchforks and decrying "corruption". But again, it was all just another Kabuki dance, since no one wanted to go to the heart of this problem, which is the massive amount of corporate money infecting our politics and our government. Instead of asking why who didn't report what on which form, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept the gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex bestowing upon us "the best democracy money can buy"?

We saw another act in this Kabuki theater last week when the Harvey Whittemore scandal broke. Pundits were pointing fingers in all directions. "How much did Harry Reid get from Whittemore? What will Dean Heller do with all those donations?" But funny enough, Jane Ann Morrison, one of the resident R-J pundits, actually made what was perhaps the smartest comment on last Friday's episode of "Nevada Week & Review" when she pointed out that what Whittemore did with his contributions isn't all that different from what the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess are doing with Super PACs today. Of course, the only big difference is that Whittemore was "ahead of the curve" in doing it before the US Supreme Court legalized Super PACs with their Citizens United decision. Again, instead of asking why who accepted how much from whom, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept that so much power and influence in concentrated in the hands of a privileged few?

And finally, we saw California's State Senate Leader tell us to stick our SB 271 "Trash Tahoe Bill" where the sun don't shine. Thankfully, California's Legislature doesn't seem to be under the firm grip of corporate lobbyists yearning for more real estate development at Lake Tahoe. Unfortunately, ours has been. Again, why can't anyone ask why we have to accept that a few powerful corporate interests get to call all the shots and pave paradise to put up more parking lots?

And this takes us back to Elizabeth Halseth and her now defunct political career. How did it last for this long? And how was she able to get away with her escapades with Tiger Helgelien until late last week? If you want answers, then I suggest you see her page on the Secretary of State's new AURORA campaign finance database. And remember who funded "anonymous" attacks on her Democratic opponent in 2010. And remember who guided her last February to smear elementary school kids begging for the chance to stay in school. Notice anything?

If one really has to ask why Halseth made it to Carson City last year, then one hasn't been paying attention.

Believe it or not, a whole lot of folks across the state are still asking that question. And a whole lot of folks are still shocked at Chuck Muth exposing Halseth's moral hypocrisy. I'm just waiting for someone, anyone (!!!), to demand the kind of changes to our system that will no longer allow shadowy corporate interests to pop out of nowhere and send "empty suit" politicians like Elizabeth Halseth to do their bidding.

Surprise! California Balks at Trashing Tahoe.

Who could have guessed that last year's "Trash Tahoe Bill" would get such an icy reception across state lines? Who could have guessed? Steve Sebelius noted it yesterday, and The LA Times posted more today on California's response to Nevada's SB 271.

Last year, Nevada state Sen. John Lee [D-North Las Vegas] sponsored a bill that would pave the way for development in the Tahoe basin. Specifically, the legislation calls for loosening the bi-state governing board's voting requirements, effectively making it easier to change environmental standards. Under the law, if the conditions aren't met by late 2015, Nevada will walk.

In a letter to Lee on Wednesday, [California State Senate Leader Darrell] Steinberg [D-Sacramento] called the legislation "both unnecessarily inflammatory and deeply counter-productive."

"One can only imagine how leaders in Nevada would react if California were to take similar action," he wrote. "It is both surprising and disappointing to see a national treasure as important as Lake Tahoe become a political hostage to the agenda of special interest groups who have little interest in the many values the region provides."

The letter comes as the states argue over the density and scale of redevelopment. The bi-state compact was established by federal legislation in 1969 to protect the lake after years of loosely regulated development had paved over parts of the basin and clouded its stunningly clear waters. [...]

In his letter, Steinberg said he had appointed a delegation of lawmakers to work with Nevada on Tahoe issues. "I want to express my openness to new, thoughtful, and creative approaches to addressing the challenges relating to Lake Tahoe," he wrote, "provided they are consistent with the priorities" of the compact.

And frankly, I don't blame Steinberg and his fellow California legislators who are appalled by our legislature sticking them with this reckless action. I guess just because a few well connected lobbyists, along with a certain legislator, own property on Tahoe and want to profit off more development there doesn't mean California's legislators are prepared to trash Tahoe. Thanks to the ridiculously shortsighted SB 271 that passed last year, the entire Lake Tahoe Compact is in danger of falling apart.

So now, Steinberg is offering to send a delegation of California State Senators to negotiate with our state on how to move forward on Tahoe. I hope our legislators take some time to rethink the huge mistake they made in passing SB 271 (especially the ones who held hostage last year's budget over it) as they prepare to meet with the California delegation. So far, California (rightly) wants nothing to do with disemboweling the environmental safeguards necessary to protect Lake Tahoe for future generations, so Nevada needs to drop the hissy fit pushed by big developers and agree to a path forward for Tahoe that will preserve the lake for all Nevadans and Californians.

Red, White, Blue... & Green? Thinking of the Beach on July 4

Wow. I feel like I've been taking a trip down Memory Lane since arriving here in Orange County. In many ways, I really have. I visited an old favorite yesterday, and I was reminded of something.







If it weren't for the foresight and resolve of a few "radical activists", it wouldn't be like this today.

In 1964, Laguna Beach developed the first access standards in an early effort to prevent over development in the hillsides and canyons. While it may have been too late to stop soon-to-be calamitous developments like Bluebird Canyon, it did begin to slow development into other parts of town. In 1967, a group of local activists founded Laguna Greenbelt, an organization that wanted to build upon these access standards, and preserve all the remaining hillsides, canyons, lakes, and open space around Laguna. And though the rest of the county was then laughing at Laguna's "eccentric" ways back then, they would soon come to appreciate all this "eccentricity".

Through the 1980s, Laguna Greenbelt and other environmentalists pushed and pushed and pushed to establish the open space around Laguna as parkland for everyone to enjoy. Heck, they even tried to get Congress to declare Laguna Canyon as a national park! However, they could not seem to find success...

Until 1990, when the Irvine Company agreed to give up its plans for development and sell the land. And oh yes, in November of that year 80% of Laguna voters agreed to tax themselves in order for their city to chip into the purchase of this last chunk of Laguna Canyon in order for the entire canyon to be preserved as parkland for all to enjoy.

In 1991, local environmentalists then established the Laguna Canyon Foundation to ensure the good stewardship of the new Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. And since then, Laguna has continued to carry the gold standard of environmental protection and preservation in Orange County. Local activists truly have been able to work with local government, regional developers, and Laguna residents to ensure that Laguna remains as wild and wonderful as ever.

(Yes, I really wrote that in March 2007!)

Ironically enough, the stereotypical "conservative bastion" of Orange County is home to such amazing environmental treasures like Laguna Beach, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, Crystal Cove, and Trestles because of "radical" conservationists who recognized the need to preserve these unique natural wonders for future generations. They saw these places for what they were, and they realized the consequences of letting them forever vanish.

I was thinking about this as the battle over Lake Tahoe continues to heat up. Apparently, the usual suspects in the gaming-mining-lobbyist industrial complex are now throwing insults and calling Brian Bahouth & me "the professional environmental industry". Oh, really? So does this now make me eligible for an official "professional left" membership card?

It seems like the the usual suspects in the gaming-mining-lobbyist industrial complex have not yet learned what developers and the greater community in Orange County had to learn the hard way. People do not go to natural beauties like Lake Tahoe and Laguna Beach simply to go to the mall, look at McMansions, and/or gaze at massive casino hotels. They go for the beaches!

Think about it. One can get malls, McMansions, and casinos anywhere around Reno or Las Vegas. Where else can one find a clear lake like Tahoe surrounded by lush forests and stunning mountains?

Funny enough, the very same forces pushing for more residential and commercial development in Crystal Cove and Laguna Beach now embrace the protected public lands and essentially use them for good PR! I still hope that one day, the developers at Lake Tahoe will also recognize this. Good environmental stewardship doesn't have to mean "bad for business".

So why am I writing this rant on July 4? Let me explain. First off, I am visiting my old stomping grounds, so all of this is fresh in my mind again. And secondly, I felt the need to correct the assumptions often made about "enviro-nazis" ruining America and preventing "free enterprise" from improving Lake Tahoe.

I love America, and I love Nevada. I want to see Lake Tahoe thrive. And I'm sure that for many who live in Northern Nevada and Northern California, they see it as their patriotic duty to protect and defend what makes America great. And let's face it, where would we be without our great beaches, deserts, mountains, forests, and lakes?

Frankly, I'm peeved that environmentalists are always derided as "commie loving extremists" when we just want to save the natural beauty of our country. That's why the environmental grassroots activists worked over the years to preserve natural treasures in Orange County and across California. And hopefully, we still have time to stop what would be the horrific undoing of what has made Lake Tahoe so great.

The Corruption of Lake Tahoe... LITERALLY!

The rest of the country may be shocked when learning of today's US Supreme Court ruling overturning The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling that invalidated our state ethics law, but here in Nevada what's shocking is that someone is finally declaring something is wrong with our system of open bribery "influence in government".

Mr. Spectator has a great blog today on R&R Partners, the lobbyist powerhouse that essentially runs the state. Apparently, he felt the same sense of nausea upon reading Jon Ralston's latest column and catching this snippet that I did.

[Nevada Governor Brian] Sandoval [R-Corporate Lobbyists] not only was a superb salesman for his own policies, but he also showed another discerning quality of an effective leader: He put excellent people around him. With longtime, successful consultant Pete Ernaut always orbiting the office, Sandoval also installed Heidi Gansert as his chief of staff and Dale Erquiaga as his senior adviser. It seemed almost a triumvirate at times because they meshed so well, with the governor giving voice to policies and numbers provided by Erquiaga, a nonpareil wonk who jousted with the media on a weekly basis, and Gansert, who had legislative relationships that were important and has the ability to not answer a question with a smile as well as Sandoval.

And don't get me wrong, Ralston is 100% correct. It's easy to see Republican Governors like Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Florida's Rick Scott as complete douchebags when they display their vileness so openly and constantly make public displays of affection with the teabaggers. Nevada's Brian Sandoval, however, is snart enough not to do that. Instead, he has this slick crew of PR geniuses manage his public image while simultaneously ensuring the corporate power players' agenda IS his agenda.

The Spectator explains in further detail.

What really troubles me about this paragraph are the names, Pete [Ernaut] and Dale Eriquaga. Mr. Ernaut is “President of Government and Public Affairs and Principal” of the PR and lobbying firm R&R Partners. So to hear Ralston describe it, this paid lobbyist and noted influence peddler is all but part of the Sandoval Administration. On the R&R Partners web site under “Government Affairs/Lobbying,” they describe their services:

“Experience, access, and political intelligence. The three necessities to managing an issue. With a federal lobbying practice, as well as state lobbying in Arizona, Nevada and Utah, no one understands the dynamics of the playing field better than R&R.” [Emphasis mine.]

“Access”? So if I pay R&R money, they sell me access to elected leaders I would not otherwise have? Do they mean my representatives? The Governor? Whether you are a Socialist or a Tea Party stalwart, Governor Sandoval’s coziness with people who sell “access” for money is a big problem for regular Nevadans. For those who hump their Blackberries and iPhones while supping at Adele’s [the lobbyists' favorite Carson City hangout], corporate lobbyist connections to the highest office of state government are an apparent triumph; but for the family hoping their children can get a decent public education, not so good.

Clearly, R&R has direct access to the highest levels of Nevada Government. But wait, there's more! In addition, they're also IN Nevada Government!

Dale Erquiaga is referred to as Governor Sandoval’s “Chief Advisor.” Mr. Erquiaga is not listed on the R&R web pages as a current employee, but was once “Vice President of Brand Services.” Ah the challenges of managing the Sandoval brand. Here is what R&R says it can do for their clients regarding “Media Relations.”

“We’ve placed stories everywhere from The Washington Post to MSNBC. Our deep Rolodex of “inside the Beltway” journalists, producers and editors will allow you to leverage your message in the press.”

Excellent. Sounds like they have reporter friends in high places indeed. And of course, what’s good for the R&R client list is good for Nevada, right? Man, Ralston is correct, that team in the Governor’s office is just humming like an oily machine. Yes, the message discipline they exhibited when attempting to destroy schools for corporate profit was very impressive. And I’ll add, a governor who is too tight pals with any group or individual who sells access and influence is no better than Sandoval, Democrat or Republican. This is not a partisan issue. Corporate influence over state government needs to be reined in; but that can only happen unless you, the Nevada citizen and constituent, demand to know if the people who represent you have been swayed by R&R or any shark paid money to change minds.

And if you don't think this matters, pay close attention. Because powerful corporate lobbyists, like good ol' R&R, wanted more development at Lake Tahoe, Nevada is now threatening California and the federal government with withdrawal from Tahoe's oversight agency (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, or TRPA) if they don't agree to weakening the agency's regulatory authority so more development can be approved. Essentially Nevada is threatening to allow for the full trashing of Tahoe if California and the feds don't agree to R&R's desire for more of whatever their clients want (casinos, McMansions, malls, etc.).





Back in March, I had a chance to finally see Tahoe in person. I just can't appropriately describe in words the amazing natural beauty that is Tahoe. Hey, a picture is supposed to be worth 1,000 words!









Once one sees the glory of Tahoe for oneself, one knows. That's why it pains me to see this great jewel of The West essentially being put up for auction. And why? Because a certain Nevada State Senator owns property in Tahoe? And because R&R has both its own lobbyists and clients clamoring for more development at Tahoe? Even though TRPA has already been approving plenty of development and redevelopment plans, apparently it's not enough for R&R.

Lake Tahoe is supposed to be OUR LAKE! Public land is supposed to mean that it belongs to the public and it's preserved for the public. What Nevada's Legislature and Governor did in approving SB 271 showed that most of them simply don't care about this... Simply because they care more about private profit than public good.

However, this war is far from over. Both houses of California's Legislature must now vote on Nevada's SB 271, then it must gain approval from California Governor Jerry Brown (D), Congress, and President Obama before becoming law. If you live in California, please contact your legislators and ask them to oppose the weakening of TRPA and the trashing of Tahoe. Tell them that Lake Tahoe is a vibrant treasure that Californians, Nevadans, and really all of America want to see preserved. We can't let a few corporate lobbyists and corrupt politicians take Lake Tahoe away from us.

Sine Die, #NVLeg: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

So it's over. It's finally over. And unless Sandoval pulls any surprise last-minute vetoes, it looks like Nevada will have a budget on time, more smoke-filled taverns, a new legal battle with California over Lake Tahoe, an "extreme makeover" of Reno's bowling stadium, and more.

Oh, joy!

Just before noon on Monday, the Senate approved Assembly Bill 561, the bill that extends $620 million in taxes approved in the 2009 legislative session, which were set to expire, or sunset, on July 1.

"They said we were too far apart to reach a budget agreement,” said Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas. “They said it couldn’t be done. We proved the pessimists wrong.”

The bill that sparked the contention was Senate Bill 506, a bill that allowed for a toll road in Boulder City, but which also included Assemblywoman Debbie Smith’s “School Works” legislation, which would allow school districts to lower their bond reserves and fund construction projects.

The bill died in the Assembly because of opposition to the toll road, but came back to life with 13 minutes left in the session.

This time, it passed 29-13. The School Works measure was moved to AB 376, a so-called “Christmas Tree” bill, which also included measures to allow the Reno Aces ownership to add a surcharge on tickets and downtown Reno casinos to add a $2 per room night charge for improvements to the National Bowling Stadium, Reno Events Center and Reno Ballroom. It was approved with nine minutes left in the session.

That could really sum it up, but there's even more to talk about. Let's start with the good that happened this session:

- The state gave up its lust for county and city funds now that The Nevada Supreme Court ruled the Clean Water Coalition money grab unconstitutional.

- SB 276, the bill written to protect K-12 students from dangerous bullying (and is LGBTQ inclusive), passed.

- AB 211! Finally, transgender Nevadans can no longer be fired from work just because of who they are.

- Yay! Kenny Guinn Millennium Scholarships continue!

- Despite a last-minute court ruling jeopardizing additional mining fees, the mining industry finally agreed to cough up an extra $24 million to keep the state running.

- And at least for now, Nevada's colleges will remain safe and gun-free.

While I wish to just leave it here, we must also unfortunately address the bad that happened this session:

- Let the Tahoe trashing begin! SB 271 passed, so now Nevada can look forward to more unnecessary legal battles with the feds and California.

The demands in Senate Bill 271 are major. Chief among the demands are that the U.S. Congress and California would have to agree that major decisions do not need approval from a majority of members of the board from both states. Also, the Governing Board of TRPA would have to consider economic conditions when amending their regional plan. Congress and California would have 4 and a half years to agree to the terms.

As the law stands now, If these demands aren't met, then Nevada would withdraw from the compact by 2015. However, there is another legislative session before that time and Nevada Legislators could back-track. But until then the measure puts at risk a 415 million dollar 10-year funding bill for the agency that is floating on the floor of congress.

And considering California still has to resolve its own budget crisis (yet again), Sacramento probably has no appetite for any of Carson's follies right now.

- Teachers and other public servants get spat upon yet again with more pay cuts, more layoffs, and possibly more limits to their collective bargaining power.

And finally, let's take a look at the simply ridiculous:

- Yet again, we have a "budget" cobbled together from random this and mix of that... And our schools are still being shortchanged.

- Redistricting is now likely to go to court, as The Legislature adjourned without agreement on a new set of maps to send to Sandoval.

- And as usual, The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce pretty much got its way on everything.

So there you have it, folks! And that's all, folks... At least for now. #NVLeg may have adjourned, but the drama stirred up from this session may just be starting.

As the 76th Session Closes...

(Btw, there's more at The Nevada View! Yes, I'm now there, too!)

We see the usual last-minute flurry of activity.

The Legislature has until 1 a.m. Tuesday to finish its business, unless Gov. Brian Sandoval calls a special session, which he has said he will not do.

Republicans, led by Sandoval, agreed to extend taxes passed in 2009 that were set to expire on June 30. In exchange, Democrats agreed to spending cuts for education and social services, and changes to policies like teacher tenure and collective bargaining.

The latter issue, which dictates how counties and cities bargain with public employee unions, threatened to unravel the budget compromise Sunday night. Republicans were unhappy with language they believed broke the general agreement the sides had struck. Specifically, they believed the agreement included a ban on supervisors bargaining collectively. It was so narrowly written that only a handful of city, county and school district employees would be banned, said Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno.

But Kieckhefer said Monday morning that a compromise had been reached about 3 a.m. this morning that would create a broader prohibition on supervisors collectively bargaining.

Oh, yes! Of course, our biggest problem right now is allowing public servants to bargain collectively. [Face, meet palm.]

So the budget is being wrapped up as we speak. In the mean time, bills addressing matters as diverse (or are they?) as HOAs, financial crises, Reno's bowling stadium and baseball team, and Lake Tahoe have one more chance of passage tonight. Fasten your seat belts, kids, we're in for one more VERY bumpy ride!

And then what? What happens when the 76th Session of The Nevada Legislature adjourns? Maybe the 77th Session won't have to be so unforgivingly, brutally banal? One can hope... And then, others can act.

Danny Thompson of the AFL-CIO and Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, both said in the past two days that work goes on in preparing a tax ballot question of the 2012.

Fulkerson talked about the initiative being for a new broad-based business tax or a tax on mining. PLAN had given up on a service tax question since it would hit too many in the middle class. (Plus, it would get very complicated).

Thompson is leaning toward a business tax. Both, however, said that a petition drive for the ballot question on taxes is definitely coming.
“Clearly, you are never going to get anything done here (at Legislature),” Thompson said. “It’s impossible.”

As we talked about yesterday, our state can not afford any more inaction. However "messy" and "unpredictable" it may be, direct democracy may truly be the one real solution to avoid any more missed opportunities like this session's.

My Planned Testimony on SB 271

Because there were many speakers scheduled and certain legislators were actually asking questions about this, I couldn't speak. However, this is what I was planning to say about SB 271. If you also want to make your voice heard, send a message to your legislators while you still can.

---

When I visited Lake Tahoe this spring, I did not go to see just another casino, or just another shopping mall, or just another ski resort. I went to experience the unique natural beauty of the lake. Tahoe truly is one of Nevada's greatest jewels. But if SB 271 passes, Nevada risks losing this jewel.

Lake Tahoe is a precious resource that Nevada should treasure. Yet if SB 271 passes, we will jeopardize the clarity of the lake that residents and tourists alike love by allowing for more development that harms the streams the feed into the lake. And why? So more McMansions can be built? So another ski resort and casino can be developed? And we potentially lose the economic lifeblood of this area? New development and redevelopment projects are already being approved. Why do we need to weaken TRPA?

I hope this legislature considers both the long term economic health and environmental health of the region when considering SB 271. I am afraid of the consequences of withdrawing from removing the regulatory checks and balances necessary to protect Lake Tahoe and preserve Northern Nevada's crown jewel for future generations. Please look at the big picture. I suspect you will find that if passed, SB 271 would harm the Tahoe region far more than it would help.

Hold On! We Still Have to Save Lake Tahoe!

So now, all of a sudden, we may have a workable budget deal. OK, so there's progress.



However, there's still another threat lurking. Again, Lake Tahoe is in danger. There's an intense last-minute push to pass SB 271.

[...T]he amended Senate Bill 271 calls for changes in how the agency operates, threatening withdrawal only if those changes don't happen.

The biggest change is the elimination of the super majority voting rule required for the approval of projects and the certifying of environmental impact statements. Many have complained California members use that rule to block practically every development.

In addition, anyone suing to challenge any part of the basinwide regional plan would have the burden of showing that the plan violates the compact.

[State Senator John] Lee [DINO-Corporate Fat Cats] said the plan also would be changed to require the governing board to consider economic conditions in the Tahoe Basin so that its decisions do not negatively impact the economy.

[Carson City Supervisor Shelly] Aldean said that if California and the U.S. Congress reject these and other changes to the compact in the bill, Nevada could withdraw from the bistate compact effective in 2015.

“The provision also gives the agency a mandate to make sure significant progress has been made by Oct. 1, 2013,” Aldean said. “The states have to work together harmoniously.”

So if passed, SB 271 would allow for Nevada to threaten California and the feds with withdrawal from Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the bi-state regulatory body in charge of preserving Tahoe's natural beauty, if they don't agree to the weakening of TRPA and allowance of more real estate development. It looks like the big developers are ready to go all in to force more McMansions and big box developments on this threatened area.



The Nevada Spectator sheds more light on what SB 271 may cause to one of Nevada's last natural jewels standing.

The bill would also make it more difficult to sue polluters, and would also make the perceived economic impacts of shooting down development a primary consideration when deciding on proposed development. If these and other “reforms” are not met, Nevada will form its own regulatory body, the Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. What an environmental horror show. Las Vegas Democrat John Lee is sponsor of the bill, and I understand Mr. Lee owns a home on the lake. I wrote him to verify, but he has yet to respond, though I’ve heard from folks who attended a recent party there that he does indeed keep a place on Tahoe. I am flabbergasted he is putting this bill forward with such an obvious conflict. Am I to believe we are going to open the floodgates to Tahoe development Nevada style so Senator Lee can get his dock approved faster?

Lee complains California and TRPA are “obstructionist,” but the entire basin is already way over developed with huge casinos, ski resorts and all they entail. We do not need to loosen environmental regulation on Lake Tahoe but tighten it. This bill would do nothing but grease the skids for more crass and environmentally heedless development.

As Rochelle Nason, of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, explained to Nevada Spectator, it's not as if TRPA is blocking all development at Tahoe. In fact, they just approved another massive ski resort on Tahoe's West Shore! And they've yet to put together a comprehensive regional plan to balance the Tahoe region's economic needs with preserving the environmental wonders of the area and the integrity of the unique communities there.



So instead of ensuring that all in the community, as well as those of us in Nevada and California that enjoy visiting Tahoe and also have a stake in this, John Lee and his big developer buddies would rather pass SB 271 behind our backs and weaken the very protections Lake Tahoe urgently needs to prevent further air and water pollution. Remember that Lake Tahoe's clarity greatly depends on the health and well-being of surrounding forests, streams, meadows, and wetlands. Ironically enough, by allowing for further development into those forests as well as more commercialization of the lake, we risk losing the very quality of Tahoe that forms the beating heart of the region's economy. So in this short-sighted push to allow for more real estate development and urbanization of Lake Tahoe, we risk losing the signature natural beauty that drives tourism to the region!

So in these last few days of the 76th Session of The Nevada Legislature, we must urge legislators to stop this nonsense by saying no to SB 271. At the same time, we must also tell them and California legislators that we need to ensure TRPA does its job by strengthening the protections Tahoe needs to recover the lake's clarity and preserve the integrity of the local communities.

Lake Tahoe on the Bargaining Table... Or the Chopping Block?

Apparently, yet another victim has been taken hostage by craven "conservatives" in The Legislature...

LAKE TAHOE!

Yes, believe it or not, this is what's happening behind closed doors in Carson City.

A Nevada Senate committee tempered anger toward California and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Monday, seeking changes to a two-state compact instead of immediate withdrawal from the agency that oversees development and environmental protections in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The Senate Government Affairs Committee amended and approved SB271. Among other things, the bill calls for an end to a supermajority of the voting, 14-member TRPA governing board needed to approve projects and regional plans. Any projects currently permitted would be grandfathered.

Nevada and California each have seven members on the board. There is also one non-voting member appointed by the president.

Other provisions require that any regional plan, which hasn't been updated since the mid-1980s, consider the Lake Tahoe Basin's changing economic conditions, and that anyone challenging a plan has the burden to show how it violates the compact.

During an earlier committee hearing, critics of the TRPA called the agency a “bloated bureaucracy” and an “obstructionist organization” that takes years to decide if a homeowner can cut up a dead tree or pave a driveway.

Nevada lawmakers lobbed anger at environmentalists and California, saying the liberal leanings of Nevada's western neighbor infringe on the property rights of residents on the eastern shore of the Sierra jewel.

So what exactly are we talking about?



Here's the deal. Lake Tahoe is an amazing jewel of The West... But over the years, there's been a massive struggle to stop this gem from losing any more of its luster. Because of development gone amok, the lake was losing its famed clarity and dazzling blue tint, and pollution was becoming a more serious problem. And as climate change has worsened, so too have the environmental dilemmas at Lake Tahoe. But thanks to efforts to curb the pollution and better regulate real estate development, Lake Tahoe has actually been improving. And by expanding on these efforts, it may even be possible to restore a full 100 feet of visibility in the lake in the future. There was even hope last month to turn these hopeful words into action.

A plan to return Lake Tahoe to its historic levels of clarity has moved one step closer to reality — but not before prompting questions about its costs and timing.

The California State Water Resources Control Board approved a plan earlier this month to return the lake to 100 feet of clarity within 65 years by limiting pollutants. The plan, developed by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, was forwarded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

The initial step will require Lake Tahoe Basin counties, road departments and the city of South Lake Tahoe to reduce the amount of fine sediment entering the lake by 32 percent during the next 15 years.

By making the reductions, the lake should reach 78 feet of clarity, about eight feet more than exists today, officials say.

"Our goal is to give future generations the opportunity to see for themselves what Mark Twain saw when he said, upon visiting Lake Tahoe for the first time, `I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole world affords,'" Harold Singer, the Lahontan water board's executive officer, said in a statement.

But apparently, a few legislators in Carson City want none of this. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is in charge of regulating development in and around Lake Tahoe. But if passed, SB 271 would put Nevada on record opposing this and calling for its weakening and/or dismantling. After all, who needs a silly blue lake when ski resorts can be expanded and legislators' vacation homes can get new docks?



Here's the problem with this flawed thinking. It's incredibly shortsighted, and it ultimately hurts the economic well-being of the Tahoe region. After all, Tahoe is a major tourist destination welcoming over 3 million visitors annually. And what do people go for? One cookie-cutter ski resort? One shopping mall? A few boat slips? No, they go for the beauty of the lake! By allowing Tahoe's water quality to worsen and overall pollution problems to worsen just for the sake of letting a privileged few make a few extra million bucks, legislators would be lessening the appeal to visit Tahoe and jeopardizing the economic health of the greater community.

Go ahead and take a closer look at SB 271, then do something about it. We simply can't afford to forever lose an amazing gem like Lake Tahoe.