Saving Lake Tahoe: An Environmental History of a National Treasure

17. Conflicting Hopes

165 Charles Goldman’s limnological studies in the 1960s led directly to the formation of trpa. Since then, the agency’s utilization of science has been critical in protecting the lake. But as experiments produced additional data in the twenty-first century, trpa changed its emphasis in attempting to solve the water-clarity problem. Research regarding clarity emphasized the effects of nitrates and phosphorus feeding algae until a number of scientists turned their attention to another contributor to losses: fine sediment, basically the tiniest particles of pulverized granite. Beginning in 1978, researchers gathered data on stream-bank erosion and sediment input, looking at a few streams in various watersheds. In 2008 a study charted sediment inputs from each of the basin’s sixty-three watersheds in order to better identify the chief polluting sources and their magnitude. The focus also shifted to sediment that carried into the water from urban areas, roads, and parking lots. Decision makers postulated that in critical areas, filtration systems and catch basins that captured storm-water sediment before it reached the lake would improve water clarity immeasurably.1 In 2011 trpa changed its method of regulating projects from the Bailey system , approving proposals lot by lot, to a “Total Maximum Daily Load” plan that would measure fine sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen entering the lake on a basin-wide basis. It would involve management agencies and state departments of transportation assisting local municipalities with pollutant-load reduction works intended to trap the contaminants. The undertakings were to be implemented at nine urban centers, and the local jurisdictions would be charged with reducing fine sediment emissions by 32 percent over the next fifteen years. John Reuter, associate director of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center , cautioned that in Tahoe’s steep granitic basin, with periodic flash flooding, officials should proceed slowly. Acknowledging that it is an interesting concept , he said, “Before agencies just approve a lot of new projects with this as s e v e n t e e n n conflicting hopes 166 s a v i n g l a k e t a h o e the key, it would be nice if we knew more. . . . They may work. They may not work.”2 Conservation activists wanted trpa to heed Reuter’s caution. Their concerns included the length of time trpa would allow for the reduction of pollutants and how local governments would pay their share of the improvements. Disregarding the objections, trpa forged ahead with its strategic vision of rebuilding in urban areas to improve lake-water quality. Speaking in 2011, executive director Marchetta said that the lake’s famed blue waters could be reclaimed. “The solution is clear,” she told Nevada legislators. “We need to remake our town centers through environmental redevelopment that would be both environmentally and economically beneficial.”3 The agency had concluded that balancing economic, environmental, and social concerns was necessary for restoring the lake’s health. It pointed to studies revealing that urban upland, which made up only 15 percent of the basin’s landmass, produced 72 percent of the pollution entering the lake. Using that data, the board determined that a top priority should be making old buildings ecofriendly. With all levels of government cutting spending, trpa sought partnerships with private entities to strengthen the linkage between its environmental restoration program and a revitalized basin economy. The agency offered to allow developers to expand facilities if they created more environmentally sustainable buildings. The agency gained the support of the business community, but the conservation community was unconvinced.4 The trpa plan would allow buildings up to six stories high to replace the old commercial area buildings, as well as more apartment buildings in neighborhoods . “Smart growth is an excellent strategy for urbanized areas where growth is inevitable,” said the league’s Nason. “But it is not smart to apply it to Tahoe, a sensitive area that is threatened by growth and overuse.”5 When he quit as trpa executive director in 2009, a weary Singlaub had commented, “The part that is frustrating for me is not being able to convince the environmental community that redevelopment and environmental improvements paid for by the private sector is best for the Lake. When I say that, they paint me as pro development.”6 The League to Save Tahoe and the Tahoe Area Sierra Club had also c o n f l i c t i n g h...