Site search
sponsored by
News
LAKE TAHOE — A move by one Lake Tahoe Basin water quality agency to fulfill recommendations by the California-Nevada Tahoe Basin fire commission came under legal challenge by basin environmental groups last week.
On June 18, Sierra Forest Legacy and the Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group filed suit against the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board in El Dorado County Superior Court.
The suit challenges a memorandum of understanding between the water board and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that was approved in December 2008. The memorandum made the TRPA the primary agency for fuel reduction project permits in basin.
The groups said approval of the memorandum was a violation of California laws because it does not include enough detail about how the TRPA will regulate the potential negative environmental effects from the projects.
The memorandum arose out of a recommendation by a fire commission created by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons after the Angora fire to examine the causes of the blaze and make recommendations about preventing it from happening again.
Requiring similar permit approvals from both the water board and TRPA made fuel reduction efforts in the basin more expensive and caused delays, according to the commission's final report.
Streamlining the fuel-reduction permitting process was a “significant step” to implementing many of the board's recommendations, said Harold Singer, executive director of the water board.
Singer contends that, while the water board's and TRPA's fuel reduction project requirements are not identical, the memorandum will still be effective in protecting water quality at Lake Tahoe.
“We're not asking (the TRPA) to mimic our exact regulatory processes,” Singer said. “What we're saying is their overall program is equivalent to ours.”
“The real difference of opinion is that the parties that filed the lawsuit feel that its not line by line equivalent of ours,” Singer said.
When the water board passed the memorandum they effectively repealed their own requirements and transferred them to TRPA, which contains no analysis of how TRPA will monitor logging in comparison to Lahontan's requirements, according to the suit.
Michael Graf, the attorney representing the environmental groups, questions how much the dual-permitting process truly slowed fuel reduction projects in the basin, and said there is “no evidence” to support the commission's finding of delay.
Funding issues played a larger role in getting fuel reduction efforts on the ground, Graf said.
Approval of the memorandum by the water board was a result of the “tremendous political pressure to relax, if not eliminate the environmental controls over fuel reduction processes” on the board following the fire, Graf said.
“The commission is comprised of a lot of people who have been pushing for fuel reduction in the first place,” Graf said.
The lack of detail in the TRPA's requirements for fuel reduction project monitoring opens the basin to environmental degradation, Graf said.
“The TRPA code is very vague as to what they're going to require,” Graf said.
Dennis Oliver, a spokesman for the planning agency, acknowledged the TRPA code does not contain the same level of detail as the water board's code, but disputes the contention that their monitoring will diminish water quality.
The TRPA doesn't not have “one size fits all” rules, but includes several levels of review. By putting people on the ground “who know what they are doing,” fuel reduction projects can be effectively implemented without negative environmental impacts, Oliver said.
“Between all of the different agencies you have the expertise to make sure these projects are being done correctly,” Oliver said. “It doesn't necessarily require that we spend a lot of extra time doing paper work.”
Both Singer and Graf said fuel reduction projects in the basin would not be affected by the lawsuit until its conclusion, but Oliver wasn't so sure.
“Anytime you have litigation, it focuses your attention away from the work that needs to be done,” Oliver said.
The environmental group's suit asks for the 2008 decision to be thrown out, and asks for reimbursement for attorney's fees and the cost of the suit.
A hearing date has yet to be scheduled.
On June 18, Sierra Forest Legacy and the Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group filed suit against the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board in El Dorado County Superior Court.
The suit challenges a memorandum of understanding between the water board and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that was approved in December 2008. The memorandum made the TRPA the primary agency for fuel reduction project permits in basin.
The groups said approval of the memorandum was a violation of California laws because it does not include enough detail about how the TRPA will regulate the potential negative environmental effects from the projects.
The memorandum arose out of a recommendation by a fire commission created by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons after the Angora fire to examine the causes of the blaze and make recommendations about preventing it from happening again.
Requiring similar permit approvals from both the water board and TRPA made fuel reduction efforts in the basin more expensive and caused delays, according to the commission's final report.
Streamlining the fuel-reduction permitting process was a “significant step” to implementing many of the board's recommendations, said Harold Singer, executive director of the water board.
Singer contends that, while the water board's and TRPA's fuel reduction project requirements are not identical, the memorandum will still be effective in protecting water quality at Lake Tahoe.
“We're not asking (the TRPA) to mimic our exact regulatory processes,” Singer said. “What we're saying is their overall program is equivalent to ours.”
“The real difference of opinion is that the parties that filed the lawsuit feel that its not line by line equivalent of ours,” Singer said.
When the water board passed the memorandum they effectively repealed their own requirements and transferred them to TRPA, which contains no analysis of how TRPA will monitor logging in comparison to Lahontan's requirements, according to the suit.
Michael Graf, the attorney representing the environmental groups, questions how much the dual-permitting process truly slowed fuel reduction projects in the basin, and said there is “no evidence” to support the commission's finding of delay.
Funding issues played a larger role in getting fuel reduction efforts on the ground, Graf said.
Approval of the memorandum by the water board was a result of the “tremendous political pressure to relax, if not eliminate the environmental controls over fuel reduction processes” on the board following the fire, Graf said.
“The commission is comprised of a lot of people who have been pushing for fuel reduction in the first place,” Graf said.
The lack of detail in the TRPA's requirements for fuel reduction project monitoring opens the basin to environmental degradation, Graf said.
“The TRPA code is very vague as to what they're going to require,” Graf said.
Dennis Oliver, a spokesman for the planning agency, acknowledged the TRPA code does not contain the same level of detail as the water board's code, but disputes the contention that their monitoring will diminish water quality.
The TRPA doesn't not have “one size fits all” rules, but includes several levels of review. By putting people on the ground “who know what they are doing,” fuel reduction projects can be effectively implemented without negative environmental impacts, Oliver said.
“Between all of the different agencies you have the expertise to make sure these projects are being done correctly,” Oliver said. “It doesn't necessarily require that we spend a lot of extra time doing paper work.”
Both Singer and Graf said fuel reduction projects in the basin would not be affected by the lawsuit until its conclusion, but Oliver wasn't so sure.
“Anytime you have litigation, it focuses your attention away from the work that needs to be done,” Oliver said.
The environmental group's suit asks for the 2008 decision to be thrown out, and asks for reimbursement for attorney's fees and the cost of the suit.
A hearing date has yet to be scheduled.
