A Historical Snapshot: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)

and the Issue of the Proposed Regional Plan Update (RPU)

The 2012 proposed Regional Pan Update is not a minor tweaking of building codes;

it is a massive reordering of governance and development.

Because of the incredible destruction of the fragile ecosystem of Lake Tahoe through during the 1950s and 60s, in 1969 a Bi-State Compact was adopted by California and Nevada and signed by President Nixon, establishing the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to protect Lake Tahoe. Prior to the establishment of this federal agency, the two states and their respective counties that bordered the lake did whatever they wanted in their jurisdictions. The establishment of the TRPA largely halted, for the moment, the environmental devastation.

The compact includes “Findings and Declarations of Policy” that identify the region as exhibiting “unique environmental and ecological values which are irreplaceable,” and singles out “increasing urbanization” as the threat to those values. It invests TRPA “with the powers conferred by this compact, including the power to establish environmental threshold carrying capacities,” which are defined as “environmental standard[s] necessary to maintain significant scenic, recreational, educational, scientific or natural value[s] of the region or to maintain public health and safety within the region.” Finally, it empowers and charges TRPA “to adopt and enforce a regional plan and implementing ordinances which will achieve and maintain such capacities while providing opportunities for orderly growth and development consistent with such capacities.”

With the passage of time, the governing board of TRPA (who are appointed, not elected) unanimously adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities (thresholds) for the region, by its resolution 82-11, on August 26, 1982. In addition to five threshold areas specified by the compact – air quality, water quality, soil conservation, vegetation and noise – TRPA adopted thresholds for wildlife, fisheries, recreation and scenic resources. For each threshold area, a number of metrics to be measured (threshold indicators) was designated.

Resolution 82-11 established procedures for the maintenance of the thresholds over time, directing that

following the adoption of the regional plan, the thresholds “shall be reviewed at least every five years” using “the most appropriate means.”

Between 1982 and 1987, in the judgment of most, the unanimity that had characterized the adoption of the thresholds broke down. The agency adopted a regional plan that was designed to maximize the discretion of the agency staff and its governing board in permitting projects, saying, in effect, “trust us;

we will decide these things wisely on a case-by-case basis.” Challenged by the state of California and most in the environmental community, the plan was enjoined in a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Enjoined, therefore, from approving development projects, TRPA convened an extensive consensus-building process that ultimately produced a compromise plan. The new plan slowed the pace of development and put in place carefully designed and ostensibly scientifically based restrictions on the agencies’ discretion to approve projects, especially the development of sensitive lands and the amount of coverage permitted on individual parcels. The point is that to remove arbitrary decision making and limit political influences – particularly that of resort developers whose desires for profits at the expense of the environment had already been documented elsewhere – the emphasis was placed on scientific determinations.

It is believed today, however, by most in the citizen-action/environmental/conservation community that efforts to urbanize the Tahoe Basin by TRPA remains it main objective – and to do so by wrapping their proposals with the language of scientific planning. This is now called “greenwashing.” Agency planners and public relations spokespersons are careful to refer to the well known theory of “smart growth” when selling their plans. Few realize that such a theory can’t be applied to most of the Tahoe Basin because the requisite conditions don’t exist. But, it “sounds” good.

To many, the TRPA has become captured by the special interests it was established to control. Indeed, evidence that in practice the agency is inclined to disregard thresholds that stand in the way of increasing urbanization was revealed in 2007 when the agency’s staff actually proposed disregarding the existing thresholds entirely and developing a completely new set to replace them.

Currently the TRPA is developing a new 20-year regional plan (the Regional Plan Update or “RPU”), to be based on the achievement of the thresholds including ones that it is presently disregarding or that it has already identified as needing strengthening. Observers are skeptical about both the wisdom of moving forward with a 20-year plan based on such a weak foundation, and also whether or not such an approach truly fulfills the mandate of the compact or complies with Resolution 82-11.

To many, over the years, TRPA’s understanding of its powers and obligations has strayed far from the compact’s direction to assure threshold achievement while offering local communities as much latitude as possible to address social and economic problems. It has ignored the massive damage caused by storm pipes that dump tons of pollutants directly into the lake regularly. Its proposed RPU pretends to be scientific but isn’t. TRPA promises local economic stimulation (which is not its charge) via its proposed RPU but heavily leans toward supporting the desires of Wall Street sponsored massive resort development over plans which would help local small business. Pressed by Nevada’s gaming industries’ desires to deregulate development, Nevada’s legislature recently passed legislation (SB271) that threatens withdrawal from the compact if it doesn’t get the development it demands and a new voting process by TRPA’s Governing Board – a process most agree that California will never ratify.

The uncertainty generated by this situation is a matter of deep concern to friends of Lake Tahoe, who come from many perspectives, whether their focus is conservation, economic development, property rights, social justice, public safety, recreational access or the quality of life in local communities.

This website is dedicated, among other things, to providing visitors with information about the multi-faceted topic of the proposed RPU. The Blue Boxes below this one each examine the proposed RPU from different perspectives.