Tahoe Construction Freeze Extended by Federal Court

A federal appeals court on Monday extended a moratorium on construction in the Lake Tahoe Basin, agreeing with a lower court that a bistate agency’s development plan “will only contribute to deterioration of the environmental quality of the region.”

The ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was hailed as a victory by the League to Save Lake Tahoe and applauded by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.

“We are very, very happy,” league attorney Clem Shute said Monday in San Francisco. “One of the main reasons is that we now have an appellate court interpretation of the requirements the agency must meet to protect the lake.”

The league and the state of California initiated the court action last year, arguing that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s master plan for development failed to provide adequate safeguards for the scenic area.

As a result of the ruling, a construction freeze opposed by many lake property owners who have been unable to build on their land is prolonged until the environmental issues in question are resolved, either in trial or by an out-of-court agreement.

“The agency again is attempting to call everybody together for a compromise,” Shute said Monday. “If it is a good-faith process, we will cooperate.”

The appeals court ruling holds in place a construction ban imposed in June, 1984, by a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Edward Garcia in Sacramento.

Particular concern had been expressed by those bringing the suit over the increased clouding of the lake’s once-clear waters by algae that feed on nutrient-laden silt washed into it from cleared land.

Monday’s ruling noted that the plaintiffs had presented convincing evidence to the district court showing that algae “is growing at an alarming rate, with the inevitable result 40 years down the road of a loss of most of the lake’s clarity.”

Angry Property Owners

Angry property owners and development interests have lobbied legislators in Nevada to withdraw from the bistate compact, which was established in 1969 with the consent of Congress.

The agency, which includes seven voting members each from California and Nevada, was set up to formulate a regional plan for the development of the Tahoe Basin. The eventual plan was viewed as too weak by some, and changes were proposed in 1980 to set environmental thresholds and measurable standards for air and water quality, soil conservation, vegetation preservation, fisheries and noise.

Project approvals were temporarily suspended by the agency in 1980 until it could amend its master plan to incorporate the new standards. The amendments were approved in April, 1984, but the standards were challenged in court by the league and Van de Kamp, who claimed the amendments did not comply with compact requirements.

The appeals court upheld Garcia’s opinion that the agency plan probably does not comply with federal standards. It continues the ban on building and further disallows exemptions for single-family homes or “any project pending or otherwise from these findings.”