Judge Eases Lake Tahoe Restrictions on Building

A federal judge in Sacramento on Tuesday modified the 2-year-old moratorium on construction around Lake Tahoe, clearing the way for 300 new homes and three commercial projects in the popular Sierra Nevada resort area on the California-Nevada border.

As a result of the court order, the sound of carpenter’s hammers and the whine of power saws may once more echo through the forests surrounding the lake this summer, barring unforeseen legal tangles over the area’s future.

By modifying the 1984 preliminary injunction that banned construction, U.S. Judge Edward J. Garcia acknowledged that environmentalists and pro-growth developers are nearing final agreement on a mutually acceptable Tahoe Area Regional Master Plan, after nearly two decades of often bitter controversy.

All Parties Agree

The judge signed the order after all parties to the 1984 suit brought by the California attorney general and the League to Save Lake Tahoe approved the modification, clearing the way for limited construction.

“This signals that a real, sensible solution is close at hand,” said California Deputy Atty. Gen. Richard M. Skinner, senior attorney in the case. League spokesman Tim Martins added, “I think we’ll have a formal agreement by August.”

But not everyone agrees that the wars are over. The pro-growth Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council was not a party to the 1984 suit, and its president, Keith Klein, warned, “While the judge’s order . . . is important, it is only one skirmish, not the end of the war.”

Coming at a time when the Tahoe economy is on the skids, Klein said “any development is welcome,” but he predicted that a “giant battle is brewing” over final development of the master plan as a result of economic studies by the Tahoe Area Regional Planning Agency that show that new developers cannot afford to come into the area now. He said that any added restrictions resulting from the master plan would hurt the area even more.

All development in the 500-square-mile Tahoe Basin in the Sierra east of Sacramento and west of Carson City was halted by the 1984 court order, after the league and the state attorney general filed suit against the Tahoe Area Regional Planning Agency. The suit contended that the planning agency was not protecting the environment, as required by law.

The suit alleged that the development of high-rise casinos, large commercial centers and residential subdivisions over the years resulted in urban sprawl, traffic congestion and severe adverse environmental impacts on water and air quality.

Plan Was Expected

The regional planning agency, working under the guidelines of the California-Nevada bistate compact ratified by Congress, was supposed to have worked out a regional plan to not only control environmentally damaging growth, but to guide restoration efforts.

Such planning efforts broke down because developers, residential property owners, and casino and resort operators not only clashed with environmentalists, but often disagreed among themselves.

The court-ordered building moratorium, combined with a depressed tourist industry, caused the regional planning agency to take a radical step. Executive Director William A. Morgan decided to bring all sides together in a confrontational bargaining process run by a professional “facilitator” who kept participants at the negotiating table until they had forged a series of broad policies by consensus.

Met Nearly a Year

Two dozen interested groups, including officials from Nevada and California, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, met for nearly a year and agreed on a number of guidelines to control both commercial and residential growth.

These guidelines were presented to the regional agency board of directors in February, but the board has not yet acted. Dave Ziegler, the agency’s chief long-range planner, said board members have “given qualified support to the consensus points and unqualified approval of the overall process.”

He said the judge’s order was a “darned important breakthrough. It means the court recognizes the process is going forward,” but he cautioned against too much optimism. “I think everyone recognizes (that) the process could still get screwed up.”