Lake Tahoe Restoration Act would improve water clarity, protect against wildfires

 

 

The ongoing effort to maintain Lake Tahoe got a bipartisan push Wednesday, when Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer joined Nevada's two senators to introduce the proposed Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, which would authorize $415 million over 10 years to improve the lake's water clarity and protect the basin from wildfire. 

The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign of Nevada, proposes funding for a range of projects, including watershed restoration and storm-water management, two key factors in maintaining the lake's renowned water clarity.

In addition, the bill would set aside $136 million for fuels-reduction projects to help protect the Tahoe basin and its landowners from fires, and for removal of invasive species.

The legislation is a follow-up to a 2000 law that provided $453.8 million to maintain the environmental health of the Tahoe basin.

The tab to maintain the lake is substantial. According to Feinstein's office, in the last 10 years -- in addition to the federal funding -- Tahoe preservation efforts have required $616.6 million from California, $91.3 million from Nevada, $61.4 million from local governments and $264.4 million in in-kind contributions from the private sector.

RELATED:

Lake Tahoe: Judge strikes down new pier rules

-- Julie Cart 

Photo: A view of Lake Tahoe with the Sierra in the background. Credit: Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Bryan Bitzer]

That sure sounds like a lot of money, but if we don't take care of the problem now what will the price tag be in the future. The debate will last a long time, I am sure. It might not ever be resolved, but if we don't take action now then when? Is this just another problem that we will leave for our children to deal with?
Water Clarity and Forest Health are all important issues which need to be dealt with today, but the need for further research and study of the issues is a must and the need for a better research facility here at the Lake is in greater demand then ever. A University type research facility here at the Lake would be money well spent. I know that water resource management will be one of the biggest topics for our society in the near future as well as other sensitive topics, such as Fire Science and Forestry. Maybe it is time to look into evolving our local Junior College into a University. I know a lot of the Universities in the North State have small programs already established in the area, but is that enough. When will we supply the funds for improved study of these problems and not just putting money into temporary "band-aid" solutions to critical wound problems.

[cch]

FICBO - Some of your points are correct, like home ignitability and invasive plants being a huge problem. However, this does not mean that fuel treatments are not needed. What is "the fire suppression and fuels argument" that has been debunked by science? Do you really believe that massive crown fires are normal for Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest? Science does not support this. Do you really believe that having such fires is preferable to, or would somehow prevent, the expansion of invasive weeds? I don't think so. Ideally, frequent, low-intensity wildfire would be allowed to resume its ecological role in forests like those at Tahoe, but urbanization makes this unrealistic. Support your land management agencies instead of attacking them when they attempt to protect both natural and human resources by conducting fuel treatments. One final note - when you type in ALL CAPS it makes you seem like a ranting fool - why should anyone pay attention to you then?

[Richard Smith]

If you want to protect Tahoe, all you need to do is quit expanding ski areas and "condo villages" and bid the tree cutting out, so fuels are reduced and they make money instead of spending any. The government has made this problem by allowing ski areas to expand on federal property.

[Greensulate]

Green roofs are a great way to limit the amount of storm water runoff and improve its quality. Green roofs filter out many of the pollutants from storm water and drastically slow down "first flush". A study on a New York City green roof showed 100% retention on a 1" rainfall. This could significantly improve upon the quantity and quality of water running into Lake Tahoe.

For more information and pictures of recent jobs, see www.greensulate.com.

[Leonard C. Marshman]

Wait, isn't the Federal Government supposed to be CUTTING-BACK on things like this? People, our priorities should be re-building our schools, water systems, and roads. This is a project, like high-speed rail, that is just NOT a priority right now.

[jopsjennings]

I thought the repubs voted to drain Tahoe and re-fill the basin with ammonia, to try to keep cleaning costs down for small business? No?

[FireIndustrialComplexBurnsOn]

Oh yea, the "invasive species" problems the tax payer will pay to deal with?
After the clearing, weeds come in so you have a type conversion from a once native habitat to a weed infested nightmare you get to hit with herbicides...all at taxpayers expense. A horrible destructive loop all in the name of "fire safety."
This is also in the scientific literature over and over and over again...how "fire clearing" is introducing weeds in once pristine areas. It is an ecological nightmare and you, the taxpayer, are paying for it all. Your house will still burn down too. Sorry.

Start protecting HOMES and leave the forest alone!! Stop the lies.

[FireIndustrialComplexBurnsOn]

If protecting people from wildfire means even more destruction of native habitat then this needs to be revealed as the lie it is. LA Times, why not do an investigation showing that with all the major fires since 2005, every one of them was "fuels cleared" sometimes at millions of dollars of taxpayers expense and they burned to the ground anyway: Quincey Fire, SoCal, Santa Barbara...look into it will ya?

The science clearly shows that the most flammable thing on the landscape is the STRUCTURES and they set the other STRUCTURES on fire in concert with the wind (USGS). No amount of clearing can stop this. The solution is to install steel or cement shingle roofs, ban decks made out of wood, build fire safe structures, stop permitting homes in high fire dangerous areas (ha ha ha ha funny), reinstall steep slope ordinances (ask Nevada County why they abolished theirs then allowed development in steep location and some of the homes are build out of CEDAR) and stop blaming the natural environment for "wildfires." Also why the silence about something that is leaving homes standing called Barricade Gels? These are leaving entire homes standing but nary a word from the state or feds about this and they USE THEM!! Why aren't homeowners being given barricade gels, trained to use them, and we are subsidizing things to SAVE HOMES? Why the silence about barricade gels?

The logging companies and "biofuels" companies love this propaganda it but it is a lie and it is causing destruction to our forests and destroying thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in this ridiculous quest to set back the clock to more "fire frequent times" The fire suppression and fuels argument has been debunked by science as well. (You, know? SCIENCE?). Stop drinking the kool-aid LA Times. Do your own reporting.

Refs: The Chaparral Institute of SD County
U.S. Geological Survey