Rediscovering Tahoe

Gov. George Deukmejian visited troubled Lake Tahoe last week and told reporters who accompanied him on the tour: “I am willing to be supportive of whatever we need to have in order to deal with this problem.”

Cheers for the governor. His offer is eagerly and gratefully accepted.

The basic mechanism for dealing with overdevelopment and related problems viewed by the governor--erosion and clouding of the clear lake waters--is in place. It is the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency directed by a board represented by appointees from both Nevada and California. What is needed most is appointees from California who firmly believe that a strong planning agency, and a strong plan, is the way to deal with the Tahoe problem. Any encouragement the governor can give his representatives will be welcome. Actually, any encouragement the governor can give is critical.

If the governor wants to do more, he can join forces with Nevada Gov. Richard H. Bryan and convince the Nevada Legislature when it next meets in 1987 that Nevada should remain a willing partner in the two-state effort to spare the Tahoe Basin from further helter-skelter development. The Tahoe Basin can be preserved with some semblance of its natural beauty and recreation values only if the two states work together toward that end. If Nevada should pull out--and there has been considerable pressure in Carson City to do so--the next best alternative is for the federal government to move in.

It might be helpful, in fact, for the governor to sit down with William Penn Mott, the former state parks chief and now director of the National Park Service, to solicit his views on Lake Tahoe as a national recreation and scenic resource. A stronger federal interest in the Tahoe Basin might convince Nevada of the wisdom of remaining a full-fledged partner in the Tahoe planning process.

Something must be done at Tahoe, for the basin now is gripped by developmental gridlock. A federal appeals court recently upheld a building moratorium sought by California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp and the League to Save Lake Tahoe. Their suit was brought to avert implementation of an inadequate Tahoe regional plan. Attempts to negotiate a compromise failed because Tahoe planning foes hoped that either the Nevada Legislature would quit the agency or the appeals court would reject the moratorium.

Neither has happened. Now it is incumbent on the agency board to deal in good faith with the attorney general’s office and the league. A forum for doing that is at hand--a series of meetings involving all Tahoe interests opens today.

During his Tahoe tour, Deukmejian acknowledged that he had never been in the forefront of the environmental movement. But he said all the right things about maintaining the beauty of the mountain lake basin and the clarity of its waters.

Perhaps the governor, like others before him, has gotten Tahoe fever. If he has, there is a possible remedy: Take two aspirins and get on the phone to his Tahoe agency appointees with a dose of encouragement for a strong, effective Tahoe regional plan.

1978 record. Much of the profitability has been squeezed out by the price competition from Canada, however, and higher prices are what the American industry most wants.

Washington’s protectionists cannot wave a wand and make competition and world surplus production capacity vanish. That would impose an unacceptable price both in the cost to consumers and in the even greater cost of disrupting the world’s largest trading relationship, the Canada-U.S. partnership. Canadian competition has benefited U.S. consumers. The partnership has contributed to prosperity on both sides of the frontier.