Nevada law shifts balance of power on Tahoe planning agency
Published: Sunday, Jun. 26, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
The state line cuts through the middle of Lake Tahoe, and for 40 years, California and Nevada have worked closely to protect the lake's world-famous clarity and alpine beauty.
Now the Silver State has adopted a new law that may rub out all that cooperation.
The law, Senate Bill 271, was signed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval on June 17. Unless certain conditions are met, it directs Nevada in 2015 to withdraw from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the powerful government entity that has long united the two states to manage urban development, the leading threat to water quality.
Those conditions in the new law are far from trivial.
To avoid Nevada's withdrawal, California must agree to amend the TRPA bylaws in a way that could give Nevada more voting power, and also force it to consider economic effects. This would require legislation in California and in Congress.
"The consequences are very grave," said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the environmental group that has long served as a TRPA watchdog. "Lake Tahoe is a single watershed. It's not really possible to protect it effectively without strong cooperation."
The law is a manifestation of Nevada's mounting frustration with Tahoe development restrictions. Though critics say TRPA has rarely balked at any major development project at the lake, cumbersome regulations often produce years of delay and extra compliance costs.
"It's an issue about the pace of work that gets done," said Maureen McCarthy, executive director of the Tahoe Science Consortium. "Nevada's position is driven heavily by the economic climate. The state is broke, and by comparison to California, Nevada is really broke."
McCarthy's group helps government officials understand the science that affects Tahoe. She said TRPA has been invaluable in that regard because it welcomes that science and incorporates it into decisions.
"That's where I think we run the biggest risk," she said of the new Nevada law. "We don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water, and the baby is science."
The bill's lead sponsor, Nevada Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, did not respond to a request for comment. But he recently told the Reno Gazette-Journal the bill is about a "greater voice" for the people of Nevada.
"We just want to protect our property rights without harming the lake," Lee told the paper. "We understand it's a jewel. If we harm that jewel, we harm everything we have in Nevada."
The bill passed by a wide majority in both houses of the Nevada Legislature, and was signed by the Republican governor the day after it reached his desk.
It received surprisingly little attention from officials in California and at the federal level.
Even now, they haven't decided what to do about it.
"We're waiting for the dust to settle at this point to see how best to proceed," said Richard Stapler, spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency.
California did not weigh in with any comments as the bill was being debated. "We were respecting their state legislative process," Stapler said.
Similarly, the senior U.S. senators from the two states, Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein – both longtime advocates for the lake – were silent.
California state Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, supports the new Nevada law. His district includes the California portion of Lake Tahoe, and he agreed with Silver State lawmakers that TRPA must weigh economic as well as environmental concerns.
The Nevada law seeks to change TRPA bylaws so the agency will be required to consider the "economic effect of regulation on commerce."
"I am seriously looking at carrying my own legislation that would mirror what they've done in Nevada, and seeing if we can help with unemployment, which is very high around the lake," Gaines said.
The TRPA Governing Board has 14 voting members, evenly split between the states. Currently, at least four votes per state – a majority on each side – are required to approve any action.
Board observers say the Nevada side more often votes in unison than the California members. In practice, the rules mean Nevada's unanimous vote for a project can be outweighed by four California votes against it.
The Nevada law seeks to change this so any nine votes can approve a project. A unanimous Nevada delegation would need just two votes from California members to approve a project.
Similarly, a unanimous Nevada delegation could block any project supported by the California side.
"Essentially, Nevada would control planning for the entire Lake Tahoe basin," said Nason, of the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
Now the Silver State has adopted a new law that may rub out all that cooperation.
The law, Senate Bill 271, was signed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval on June 17. Unless certain conditions are met, it directs Nevada in 2015 to withdraw from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the powerful government entity that has long united the two states to manage urban development, the leading threat to water quality.
Those conditions in the new law are far from trivial.
To avoid Nevada's withdrawal, California must agree to amend the TRPA bylaws in a way that could give Nevada more voting power, and also force it to consider economic effects. This would require legislation in California and in Congress.
"The consequences are very grave," said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the environmental group that has long served as a TRPA watchdog. "Lake Tahoe is a single watershed. It's not really possible to protect it effectively without strong cooperation."
The law is a manifestation of Nevada's mounting frustration with Tahoe development restrictions. Though critics say TRPA has rarely balked at any major development project at the lake, cumbersome regulations often produce years of delay and extra compliance costs.
"It's an issue about the pace of work that gets done," said Maureen McCarthy, executive director of the Tahoe Science Consortium. "Nevada's position is driven heavily by the economic climate. The state is broke, and by comparison to California, Nevada is really broke."
McCarthy's group helps government officials understand the science that affects Tahoe. She said TRPA has been invaluable in that regard because it welcomes that science and incorporates it into decisions.
"That's where I think we run the biggest risk," she said of the new Nevada law. "We don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water, and the baby is science."
The bill's lead sponsor, Nevada Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, did not respond to a request for comment. But he recently told the Reno Gazette-Journal the bill is about a "greater voice" for the people of Nevada.
"We just want to protect our property rights without harming the lake," Lee told the paper. "We understand it's a jewel. If we harm that jewel, we harm everything we have in Nevada."
The bill passed by a wide majority in both houses of the Nevada Legislature, and was signed by the Republican governor the day after it reached his desk.
It received surprisingly little attention from officials in California and at the federal level.
Even now, they haven't decided what to do about it.
"We're waiting for the dust to settle at this point to see how best to proceed," said Richard Stapler, spokesman for the California Natural Resources Agency.
California did not weigh in with any comments as the bill was being debated. "We were respecting their state legislative process," Stapler said.
Similarly, the senior U.S. senators from the two states, Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein – both longtime advocates for the lake – were silent.
California state Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, supports the new Nevada law. His district includes the California portion of Lake Tahoe, and he agreed with Silver State lawmakers that TRPA must weigh economic as well as environmental concerns.
The Nevada law seeks to change TRPA bylaws so the agency will be required to consider the "economic effect of regulation on commerce."
"I am seriously looking at carrying my own legislation that would mirror what they've done in Nevada, and seeing if we can help with unemployment, which is very high around the lake," Gaines said.
The TRPA Governing Board has 14 voting members, evenly split between the states. Currently, at least four votes per state – a majority on each side – are required to approve any action.
Board observers say the Nevada side more often votes in unison than the California members. In practice, the rules mean Nevada's unanimous vote for a project can be outweighed by four California votes against it.
The Nevada law seeks to change this so any nine votes can approve a project. A unanimous Nevada delegation would need just two votes from California members to approve a project.
Similarly, a unanimous Nevada delegation could block any project supported by the California side.
"Essentially, Nevada would control planning for the entire Lake Tahoe basin," said Nason, of the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
No comments:
Post a Comment