Lahontan-issued stormwater permit being appealed to state
By Kathryn Reed
A joint appeal to the state Water Resources Control Board is being crafted by South Lake Tahoe, and El Dorado and Placer counties regarding the stormwater permit the Lahontan Regional Board approved earlier this month.
El Dorado County initiated the process. Legal counsels for the three jurisdictions with the assistance of outside attorneys in Sacramento are finalizing the paperwork. All three are sharing in the nearly $20,000 it will cost to file the petition.
The deadline to file is Jan. 5.
Lahontan Executive Director Harold Singer, third from left, told the board Dec. 6 the stormwater permit should be approved. Photo/LTN
Because the petition is not expected to be finalized until the deadline, the exact language and specific arguments are not yet public.
“We hope to get some modifications to the permit which will at least modify the tools used and get the costs down somewhat,” El Dorado County Chief Counsel Lou Green told Lake Tahoe News.
The three jurisdictions don’t believe the regional board on Dec. 6 understood their concerns or listened well. They also don’t understand why the disagreements couldn’t be talked through before the board approved the permit.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board gets to tell the three government entities on the California side of Lake Tahoe what to do when it comes to water issues. Nevada does not have an equivalent layer of government.
“We have always approached water quality on a regional level and we aren’t anymore,” South Lake Tahoe Mayor Claire Fortier said. “We need a concerted and collaborative effort to reach the goals. If the problem is roads, then let’s put money into roads.”
No one is arguing stormwater should not be treated or that lake clarity is not important. What they disagree with is the language and requirements in the permit. This also then puts another layer of responsibility on two-thirds of the lake, instead of taking a basinwide approach to the sediment issue. Monitoring and costs associated with it are huge stumbling blocks for the local entities.
“For some reason the money doesn’t matter (to Lahontan). Boy, if I ever thought of a time when money mattered, it’s now with how bad the economic times are,” Ken Grehm, Placer County public works director, told Lake Tahoe News.
“I would like to focus on cleaning up water, not so much on monitoring. Let local agencies provide services and let scientists do what they do. The real concern is I don’t know if this will work,” Grehm said of Lahontan’s rules.
He would prefer a slower, more calculated approach instead of jumping in with both feet to unchartered processes like Lahontan has mandated.
All jurisdictions call the permit an unfunded mandate. They are told to do something and no money is provided. Lahontan uses a state definition for “unfunded mandate” that differs from conventional wisdom.
Equality is an issue as well. The state water board is working on the overdue stormwater permit for Caltrans that will likely have a special section for highways in the basin. That permit, according to Lahontan, is likely to resemble what the city and counties are being asked to do.
The U.S. Forest Service, which owns about 75 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin, falls under the federal Clean Water Act instead of a municipal stormwater permit.
Lauri Kemper, second in charge at Lahontan, said she didn’t realize an appeal was in the works, but was not surprised. She said the process is the people in the petition unit do not work with the regional board on permitting issues, but are more independent. The petition unit has the authority to dismiss the petition or have a public hearing before the state board.
“If it goes to a public hearing, we would prepare a rebuttal then,” Kemper explained.
The South Lake Tahoe City Council will discuss the issue in closed session at the Jan. 3 meeting. (The full City Council agenda is online.)
The Placer County Board of Supervisors will have the petition on closed session Jan. 10. Placer County Counsel Anthony La Bouff said staff has authority from the board to go forward with the petition.
“There are a lot of moving parts in Lake Tahoe all the time. This is just one of them,” La Bouff said of the stormwater permit issue.
This is a great example of local jurisdictions finally standing up to an unaccountable state agency, it’s about time. No one argues the need for storm-water treatment, it’s just that Lahontan’s approach is half baked, places an incredible financial burden on already broke local governments, with very little scientific research it will all work. Its a big unfunded mandate and while Lahontan will argue it isn’t, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck,,,,,The organization is arrogant and out of touch, why else would a board vote to impose a program that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in the teeth of the worst recession in history? This policy needs a reset and this effort by the unified local governments is a start. (You know its bad policy when all three local governments are working together). This could have been avoided if the staff and board had listened better. They just don’t get it they never have.
Storm water is a huge issue at the lake. My questions is, has there ever been an environmental law or decision which would protect Lake Tahoe that Ribaudo agreed with?
Carl Ribaudo has one thing right: “you knowm it’s bad policy when all three local governments are working together”
Jerome Evans
I don’t disagree with he law or protecting the environment. I fully understand and agree with the fact that stormwater is a major issue and needs to be addressed. What i do support and what the Lahontan board refused to do was take more time and work out the issues with local government so you have a win win situation. Couldn’t they delay the decision 3-6 months to get everyone on board? By acting as they did the board has created local government as adversaries how Tahoe Gal does that help the environment?
Don’t feed the green pig!
It’s not about the environment it’s about early retirement!!
If we believe their data we might as well have Laub and Laub peer review tort reform.
The tmdl was built on junk science. No measurements of urban hydrology means urban hydrology was based on opinions. No measured science on lahontans favorite bmps, gutters and sweepers. Again opinion based tmdl, needs to be reworked using science, not their opinions….
One thing is for sure… 1 billion was spent and lake clarity did not improve. Process creating process in the absence of science to support it… We think we know urban hydrology…? We don’t even know the top 10 connected outfalls to the lake. Try looking at the Tahoe pipes … And LID… What’s that??? Slow the train by reprioritizing thresholds and reorganizing the clarity effort to support efforts that have the greatest efforts to improve it. Start by focusing the funding and efforts in the areas with the greatest benefit to the thing we are trying to improve . Roads are falling apart and the lake is turning green and we know 72% of the problem comes from this one source. Upgrade our infrastructure with sustainable designs and improve our roads system to achieve both economic and environmental improvements. Assume Assume Assume… To many assumptions…. Meanwhile spending oodles of funds on thresholds with little benefit to the lake meanwhile creating a tools tracking process that does nothing at the taxpayers expense. Or perhaps even restricting progress…