The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) seeks to develop and implement programs through acquisitions and site improvements that enhance the water quality, scenic beauty and recreational opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. It provides grants and directly funds soil erosion prevention and watershed restoration while improving public access by acquiring lakefront property, constructing pedestrian and bike paths, and building public access facilities. The conservancy, which is in the state Natural Resources Agency, is not a regulatory agency and its jurisdiction extends only along the California side of Lake Tahoe. The conservancy works with the federal government, Nevada, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, local governments and various entities to implement the Environmental Improvement Program, a 1997 agreement that committed $900 million over 10 years to acquisitions and capital improvement projects in the basin. 

California Tahoe Conservancy (Tahoe Integrated Information Management System)

Mission Statement (Ebudget)

Lake Tahoe, the largest alpine lake in North America, straddles the border between California and Nevada. It was formed 2 million years ago and is known for the clarity of its water and panoramic setting 6,225 feet above sea level in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Two-thirds of the 191-square-mile lake’s shoreline is in California and both the north and south shores are dominated by California cities—Tahoe City and South Lake Tahoe, respectively. The Tahoe Basin is a major tourist attraction featuring water and snow recreation areas.

Attempts in 1912, 1913, and 1918 congressional sessions failed to designate the sparsely settled basin a national park. But the local population and housing boomed after World War II. Nevada casinos in the ‘50s and new interstate highway links for the 1960 Squaw Valley Winter Olympics brought dramatic growth to the area.

The federal government facilitated an interstate compact, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), between California and Nevada in 1969 to help manage development and land-use regulations for the protection of the lake and surrounding natural resources.

The collaborative Lake Tahoe Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP) brought together TRPA, California, Nevada and federal agencies in 1978 and focused on scientific monitoring and research efforts related to the lake’s then-declining environmental status. 

In 1982, California voters approved Proposition 4, also known as the Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act, which raised $85 million for the purchase of property in the basin “to prevent the environmental decline of this unique natural resource, to protect the waters of Lake Tahoe from further degradation, and to preserve the scenic and recreational values of Lake Tahoe.” The Legislature created the conservancy to implement the bond act.

The act allowed the conservancy to purchase lands that were threatened with development, provide lakeshore access to the public, as well as access to other public lands.  Several programs were created to address the specific concerns that arose out of the acquisition of each piece of land or parcel.   

The conservancy was in its infancy when Dennis Machida became its first executive officer in 1985. Machida had been the assistant secretary for legal affairs with California’s Resources Agency in 1982 and, subsequently, led the state through the uphill, two-year battle to get the conservancy established. Machida was instrumental in the agency’s authorization of more than $290 million in public money to acquire 7,400 acres of sensitive land in the basin; funding almost 600 water quality, wildlife habitat, public access and recreation projects. Machida died in 2005 while attending a conference in Montana.

The Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisition was adopted in April 1985, which included the purchase of significant resource lands, as well as those lands needed to protect Tahoe’s natural environment. By 1987, the program’s development and implementation were underway. It purchased environmentally sensitive lands from willing sellers. It also acquired its land through grants and land exchanges with the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies.

By the mid-‘80s dozens of entities and organizations were engaged in projects and programs to address problems in the Tahoe Basin, but their efforts were dwarfed by the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) launched in 1998 following a presidential summit the year before. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore hosted a gathering in Lake Tahoe attended by the California and Nevada governors and senators as well as several members of Congress, four Cabinet-level secretaries and administrators, and dozens of high-ranking federal, state and local officials. 

The EIP called for $908 million in capital projects and $58 million in research and monitoring over 10 years. It identified hundreds of projects and singled out more than 50 partners to participate. The conservancy is a key implementing agency of the EIP.

Ten years later, the Tahoe Basin community developed a $2.5 billion extension and expansion of the EIP for new investments, including watershed restoration, forest health and aquatic invasive species management. Conservancy Executive Director Patrick Wright testified in Congress on behalf of Tahoe stakeholders to request federal participation through passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009 that would provide $415 million. As of November 2011, the bill was still lingering in Congress, where it faced an uncertain future.

Stream and Ground-Water Monitoring Program, Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada and California (U.S. Geological Survey)

Tahoe’s Environmental History (Tahoe Fund)

CTC Celebrates 25 Years of Protecting Tahoe Lands  (by Joann Eisenbrandt, Lake Tahoe News)

California Proposition 4, the Lake Tahoe Acquisitions Bond Act (1982) (BallotPedia)

Tahoe Conservancy Leader Dies at Conference (by Gregory Crofton, Tahoe Daily Tribune)

Tahoe Conservancy Issues Statement on Passing of Dennis T. Machida (Natural Resources Agency)

Testimony Before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (CTC Executive Director Patrick Wright) 

Moving from Conflict to Collaboration: Watershed Governance in Lake Tahoe (by Mark T. Imperial and Derek Kauneckis) (pdf)

Environmental Improvement Program (CTC website)

Lake Tahoe Restoration Faces Funding Challenge (by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle)

The California Tahoe Conservancy is not a regulatory agency; those functions are handled by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Its initial focus when  established in 1984 was to use the proceeds from $85 million in state bonds to purchase environmentally sensitive property and it continues to operate as a land bank. The agency has acquired more than 4,800 parcels of land, comprising more than 6,500 acres.

But over time the conservancy branched out. The conservancy has provided 170 grants to local governments and non-profit organizations for projects including erosion control, public recreation and access, and land acquisition. The CTC has contributed more than $385 million to hundreds of site improvement projects, as well as the restoration of significant wetland areas and the reduction of fuel hazards within the basin.

The conservancy plays a significant role in the Environmental Improvement Program, a joint effort begun in 1997 that implements hundreds of capital improvement, research, and program support projects. In all, partners to the EIP have contributed $1.1 billion for improving air, water, scenic quality, forest health, fish and wildlife, and public access.

The conservancy works in conjunction with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a regulatory agency created in 1969 in a bi-state compact between California and Nevada. TRPA sets limits on the amount of land that can be covered by buildings and pavement and collects scientific data on the effects of development. Not surprisingly, the agency is often criticized by developers and homeowners as being too strict, and public interest groups as being too lax. 

The wide range of the conservancy’s activities touch on water quality and watersheds, forest health, recreation and public access, and land management and acquisition.

Water Quality and Watersheds

In 1985, the CTC created the Erosion Control Program to address the problems associated with water quality from urban areas. One of the issues that the agency has identified is the suspension of fine sediment from developed areas in the basin that impacts the lake’s clarity.  Roads, structures, and parking lots create runoff that carries the sediment into the lake. The CTC has implemented several programs such as the Al Tahoe, Project 2, Bijou Erosion Control, and the Blackwater Creek Restoration Project to address the problem of urban runoff.   

One the CTC’s key programs is the Stream Environment Zones (SEZ).  SEZs are artificial streams, drainages, natural marshes and meadows that provide habitat for 84% of the Tahoe Basin’s 250 wildlife species. Urban development has greatly reduced the quality of habitat for plants, wildlife and fish.  In order to restore the natural functions of these watersheds, the CTC has created project activities such as reconnecting floodplains, restoring natural, historical stream channels, and acquiring SEZ properties to remove buildings and structures within them. Some of the signature projects within this program are the Angora Creek Restoration, Lower Blackwood Creek Restoration, and Upper Truckee March.

Beginning in the 1800’s, the basin’s forestland was cut down to provide wood for settlements and mining operations. The removal of so many trees in a short period of time caused the trees to grow back into dense forests. In addition, fire suppression in both the basin and throughout the Sierra Nevada increased forest density, making them less structurally diverse, less resilient to stress and more prone to catastrophic fire.  

The Forest Health Program  was established in 1990 and was designed to enhance the health of forest resources and wildlife habitat, preserve water quality, provide public safety and property protection, and create economical ways to manage forest resources.

 
The conservancy works with local governments and not-for-profit partners to implement projects through its grants program for the millions of visitors who come to Lake Tahoe each year. In 1986, a set of guidelines were adopted to determine how the CTC would enhance public access and recreational activities, while continuing to preserve natural resources. Some activities provided are: new parks and facilities, bike paths, and shoreline attractions.

Land Management and Acquisition

The agency began a program in 1985 to purchase environmentally sensitive land in order to protect the natural environment. The CTC acquires land from willing-sellers and through grants and land exchanges with the U.S. Forest Service. In order to qualify for such an exchange, the land must fit certain criteria beyond just being environmentally sensitive.

The Urban Lot Management Program was created in 1986 to address management issues on urban lots acquired through its Environmentally Sensitive Lands Program. The conservancy monitors activities within residential areas with the purpose of protecting water quality and community open space. Several areas of management include: property inspection, hazard tree abatement, and noxious weed prevention and control.

Lake Tahoe Cleanup Plan Has Clear Vision (by Kelly Zito, San Francisco Chronicle)

California Tahoe Conservancy 25 Years of Progress (CTC website) (pdf)

About one-third ($5.7 million) of the conservancy’s $21.5 million 2011-12 budget was earmarked for salaries, benefits and operating expenditures to allow day-to-day management of and maintenance of properties it has already acquired, as well as the completion of ongoing restorative actions. The conservancy has already acquired nearly 4,900 parcels, totaling 6,500 acres which require planning of public facilities, daily maintenance, arrangement of long-term leases and other interim uses during the site improvement implementation process.

The rest of its budget ($15.7 million) is spent acquiring environmentally sensitive lands  and establishing new public access and recreation sites. These actions mitigate development damage and enhance water quality by preserving a wide variety of habitats that support endangered plant and animal species, and restoring watersheds and streams.

The conservancy’s funding comes from a number of sources. Federal grant authority accounts for about half the money, followed by state bond measures, special funds (like sales of Lake Tahoe license plates) and the state General Fund. The conservancy also receives limited revenue from uses on Conservancy-owned properties.

Federal funding: The federal share of the Environment Improvement Program (EIP) has been provided primarily through  passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act and the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act in 2003. These and other sources have provided over $40 million annually in federal funds to the basin during the last decade.

State funding: The states of California and Nevada have both been strong funding partners with the federal government in the Tahoe Basin. The two states have invested more than $800 million in the basin during the last decade through passage of various voter-approved bonds.

Local and private funding: Local and private contributions have also supported the EIP. Through investments in infrastructure to control polluted runoff from homes, businesses, and public facilities, local and private sources have contributed over $300 million to the restoration plan in the last decade.

In 2011-12, the conservancy also had access to a significant amount of bond money that had been frozen in 2008 and 2009. The conservancy received $19.2 million from March and April 2009 bond sales and another $14.9 million from sales in October 2009, March 2010 and Fall 2010. The money is used for projects specifically authorized as bond projects and is expected to cover all cash flow needs through the end of 2012, at which point another $16.6 million for twice-annual bond sales beginning in Fall 2012 to cover remaining projects authorized by Propositions 12, 30, 50 and 84 bond programs.

Public Access and Recreation Program Guidelines  (CTC website) (pdf)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Testimony Before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (CTC Executive Director Patrick Wright)   

Executive Director’s Report (pdf)

River Restoration

The Upper Truckee River is considered the largest single source of Lake Tahoe pollutants, with six projects costing $50 million aimed at mitigating the problem. And each project has raised someone’s hackles.

“We have conflicts on every single one of those reaches,” according to conservancy Executive Director Patrick Wright. “All of those interests are legitimate.”  Those interests include dog owners wanting access to the Upper Truckee Marsh and operators of the Lake Tahoe Airport.

But Wright made it clear in a November 2011 appearance before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s governing board that fixing the river is the “largest and most important restoration project” in the basin. The board was meeting to consider the latest project to reach the approval stage: restoration of a river section that would seriously impact the Lake Tahoe Golf Course and Washoe Meadows State Park.

The river’s filtration ability has been degraded by a number of sources, resulting in an increase in fine sediment and nutrients entering the lake and reducing its clarity. It flows south to north draining snowy peaks that ring Tahoe and on the way slices through the 18-hole golf course that lies within Lake Valley State Recreation Area. The California Department of Parks and Recreation wants to move half the golf course to the adjoining Washoe Meadows State Park.

Golfers are afraid that fees could go up and the golf course wouldn’t be as nice. Others fear that the park would suffer by converting forests to fairways.

Golf Course Is the Latest, but Not the Last, River Restoration (by Adam Jensen, Tahoe Daily Tribune)

Upper Truckee Restoration Projects (Restore the Upper Truckee River)

Controversial Plan Would Move Golf Course to Reduce Erosion Into Lake Tahoe (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

State Parks Commission's Controversial Vote a Step Forward for Golf Course Reconfiguration (by Dylan Silver, Tahoe Daily Tribune)

Dog Ban

Lake Tahoe is going to the dogs, and the conservancy finds itself barked at by all involved.

The conservancy owns 311 acres in South Lake Tahoe and the Trout Creek runs through its marsh property on the way to Lake Tahoe. The property is a prime habitat for birds that have a tougher time when off-leash dogs destroy nests, kill birds and generally stress out the fowl population. In July 2010, the conservancy board banned dogs from the area from May 1 to July 31. Sheriff’s deputies handed out 86 warnings and citations, and county animal control officials doled out another 21 citations, mostly to local folks.

While the conservancy gathers data on avian counts in the marsh to see what effect the dogs are having, the seasonal ban remains in place. Even when the ban isn’t in place, all dogs must be on a leash. The locals are divided on the issue.

Responses from Lake Tahoe News readers after a story ran about the issue were mostly critical of the conservancy. They tended to favor a continuation of fines rather than an outright ban, even if only seasonal.

One reader chastised the conservancy for doing a “horrible job of educating the public” about why the closure was necessary. Another thought it must be “sad life to be a dog-hating tree hugger” and suggested, “You people at the Conservancy that came up with this brilliant ‘science’ need to go back to San Francisco.” Others said the real problem was coyotes, who had no natural predators.

But some defended the conservancy, saying, “People with dogs need to take responsibility for them.” Another said,  “Your dog is not cool and Id much rather see birds in the marsh than some ones dog running loose.” 

Seasonal Dog Ban Intact for Upper Truckee Marsh (by Kathryn Reed, Lake Tahoe News)

2011 Lake Tahoe Restoration Act

It started out as the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2009, was debated heartily in 2010 and reintroduced in 2011 where it promptly hit a legislative wall. The federal legislation would authorize $415 million over 10 years for environmental restoration and forest management. It would enable the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working with California, Nevada and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, to fund activities having to do with Lake Tahoe’s clarity, threat of catastrophic fire, invasive aquatic and terrestrial species and rising lake temperatures.

The bill would replace the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 that expired in November 2011. Harsh economic conditions have dried up funds that would normally be available for restoration projects and the political climate in Washington reflects that. “We are certainly concerned about the timeline ahead given the difficult economic times in Washington,” said Julie Regan, external affairs chief for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. “However, we are optimistic that our congressional delegation will make the case that Lake Tahoe deserves continued investment.”     

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor with Nevada Senator (and Majority Leader) Harry Reid, was less sanguine. “The money is still unknown. It's about $400 million from the feds and that looks very unrealistic.”

Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011: Federal Legislation Crucial to Continued Improvement, Officials Say (by Matthew Renda, North Lake Tahoe Bonanza)

Politicians to Introduce 2011 Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Today in Congress (Sierra Sun)

Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Renewal Up to Congress (by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle)

Dissolving TRPA

The California Tahoe Conservancy is just one cog in a broad network of around 50 local, state and federal entities that work together for the benefit of the Lake Tahoe Basin. A key part of that network is the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), an interstate compact between California and Nevada that was forged in 1969 and set the stage for a regional approach to the basin’s problems. TRPA and the California Tahoe Conservancy work closely together and signed a memorandum of understanding in 1988 that outlined many of their common interests.

TRPA is a regulatory body with the authority to adopt environmental quality standards and enforce ordinances to achieve those standards. As it moved toward approving an update to its master plan in 2011, it faced a challenge to its very existence.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed legislation (SB 271) in June 2011 calling for secession from the agency unless the compact is amended to its liking, TRPA incorporates those changes into a new regional plan by October 2013 and Congress and California approve the compact changes by 2015.

The most significant change is in the voting structure of the 14-member governing board, which is equally divided between California and Nevada. Most decisions require at least four votes from each state; the new rule would require just an overall tally of nine votes. Past votes on development projects tended to round up most, if not all, Nevadans while peeling off a couple Californians. Votes that would have failed in the past would pass in the future. It also shifts the burden of proof to those who legally challenge a new regional plan’s compliance with the existing TRPA compact.

This is the sixth time since 1975 that Nevada legislators have tried to withdraw from the compact, but have failed each time.

This time may be different. California Senator Diane Feinstein said it would be difficult to get Nevada’s changes through Congress and the state legislatures. And the issue wasn’t keeping California Governor Jerry Brown up at night. “To tell you the truth, we have so many big issues in California that TRPA is down the list,” he told reporters after meeting with the Nevada governor in August 2011. “We've got revenue problems, we've got school problems, we've got crime and realignment problems.”

Nevada Senate Bill 271

How We're Restoring Tahoe While Creating Sustainable Communities (by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Executive Director Joanne S. Marchetta, Sierra Sun)

For the Changes

Supporters of Nevada’s Senate Bill 271 argue that California has unfairly dominated TRPA and that proposed changes in the compact would establish a balance between the states’ interests that doesn’t not presently exist. California dominance, they say, has resulted in an anti-developer attitude and a top-down governance that steps on the right of local residents to make critical decisions about their communities.

Nevada’s proposed changes would restore clarity for developers and residents without compromising environmental protections, they say. “This is not a casino bill, not a rich bill, not a poor person's bill,” said Nevada Republican Assemblyman Kelly Kite. “It's about taking care of a true treasure of our country.”

The president of the Nevada Association of Realtors Mike Young complained, “We are suffocating from regulation” and being held “captive” by “the big bully in the school lunch room.”  

Carl Ribaudo, president of Strategic Marketing Group, maintains the legislation threatens “the professional environmental industry” which fails to take into account that the world has changed and that “the established concept protecting the environment by stopping all development is outmoded.”

“The top-down, cram-it-down-everyone's-throat, legal and regulatory approach may have been correct when someone was thinking about building a bridge over Emerald Bay. But, today the world and the concept of conservation and stewardship are different,” Ribaudo wrote in the Tahoe Daily Tribune. Ribaudo likened the present voting system to the old Soviet Politburo and expressed disdain for having decisions made by “some unaccountable appointees from California with a personal agenda.”

While opponents would like to paint this as a California vs. Nevada debate, there is support for the Nevada legislation in the Golden State. California Republican Tom McClintock, who represents the Tahoe-Truckee region in the House of Representatives, calls the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency “a house of ill repute.” Beyond the agency being a drag on economic development, he finds it  denies the community control over local decision-making. California Republican state Senator Ted Gaines agrees, saying “we need to put local residents before out-of-town attorneys.”  He says TRPA contributes to “stymied growth, crippling regulation and protracted litigation.”  

Nevada TRPA Bill Is a Game Changer (by Strategic Marketing Group President Carl Ribaudo, Tahoe Daily Tribune)

Rep. McClintock Supports Nevada SB 271, Labels TRPA “Huge Inhibitor of Economic Growth” (by Jason Shueh, Sierra Sun)

CA Sen. Ted Gaines Talks Nevada SB 271, Says TRPA Has Failed (Sierra Sun)

SB271: Good for Lake Tahoe Resort Area (by Republican Advocates President Jim Clark, Nevada News & Views)

Nevada Senate Bill 271 Interview with Senator John Lee (Tahoe Project)

Against the Changes

Opponents of the changes say the bill was crafted on behalf of developers and casino owners and would compromise environmental protections responsible for keeping Lake Tahoe’s renowned clarity intact. The Nevada Spectator called it “The Screw Lake Tahoe Bill.”

 “It is irresponsible to gamble the environmental future of the lake to leverage changes to the compact that would make development easier,” argues Nevada Conservation League policy director Kyle Davis.

Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, echoes the point. “This legislation undermines the movement to protect Lake Tahoe just at a time when environmental threats facing the lake are the greatest,” she said. “Climate change, urban runoff, invasive species and catastrophic wildfire are all immediate threats to the Lake's sensitive ecosystem.” 

Some opponents of the Nevada legislation say it’s actually a red herring; that its proponents don’t want the compact revised to allow a bit more development within existing environmental safeguards, they want it obliterated to allow uncontrolled development without any environmental constraints. Opponents point to recent developments, proposed developments and redevelopment plans as evidence that developers aren’t being unfairly constrained.

The compact is more than 40 years old, and is integral to activities among the more than 50 government and non-government entities with interests in the Tahoe basic. Destroying a compact that has contributed mightily to cooperative action could very well have some unintended consequences. For instance, the Tahoe Transportation District and its $400 million of projects scheduled for the next five years was created in 1980 when Congress amended the original 1969 compact. Federal funds that are a primary source of the transit district’s money flow through a planning authority tied to the compact and there is some question about how the district would function without TRPA.

TRPA has a broad agenda that serves both California and Nevada. It gathers data about the basin, conducts studies, oversees reclamation projects and evaluates development plans. It is, in many ways, a touchstone for the community and is irreplaceable. It regularly updates a regional plan that sets standards and goals that indirectly affect development and the environment in myriad ways. 

Screw Tahoe Bill Makes Way to Governor Sandoval's Desk (Protect NV)

The Screw Lake Tahoe Bill Passed the Assembly 28-14 with 12 Democrats Voting to Sell the Environment for Profit (The Nevada Spectator)

Nevada Senate Bill 271 Interview with the League to Save Lake Tahoe (Tahoe Project)

Must We Trash Lake Tahoe Forever? (by Nevada Kossacks, DailyKos)

Nevada Gov. Sandoval Signs TRPA Withdrawal Bill (by Matthew Renda, North Lake Tahoe Bonanza)

Gov. Brown: “Sharp differences” Over Nevada's TRPA Withdrawal Bill (by Matthew Renda, The Union)

Nevada Legislation Threatens Transportation Efforts at Lake Tahoe (Carson Now)

Nevada Should Not Withdraw from TRPA, Says Sierra Club (Jean Stoess, chair of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club)

Dennis Machida, 1985-2005. Machida served for 20 years as executive director died while attending a climate research conference in Montana at the age of 58. He was instrumental in creation of the conservancy as assistant secretary for legal affairs with the state Resources Agency and served as its first chief executive. During his  tenure, the conservancy authorized $290 million for acquisition of 7,400 acres of land and funding of nearly 600 water quality, wildlife habitat, public access and recreation projects.