2909 17-Mile Drive © 2003 by Leo Poppoff

Pebble Beach, CA 93953

\(831\) 375-3302

July 17, 2003

Basin Watch

by

Leo Poppoff

WHAT TAHOE\'S POLICYMAKERS THINK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Over the past three decades, Tahoe\'s policymakers have become more and
more concerned about Lake Tahoe\'s declining clarity, and about the risk
of forest fire, while continuing to believe that traffic congestion is
an important problem. These findings and many more were recently
reported by a group of political and social scientists based at
UC-Davis. The authors of the report were Professor Paul Sabatier and his
colleagues Chris Weible and Maryann Hulsman of UC-Davis, along with Mark
Nechodom of the Forest Service.

Sabatier and associates used four surveys for their analysis of attitude
changes since 1970. One was conducted by UC-Davis Professor E.
Constantini in 1970. The following three were conducted in 1984, 1990
and 2001 by Sabatier, et al.

In 1970, there was, as Sabatier describes it, \"somewhat of a honeymoon
period\" as the first TRPA compact was implemented and \"there was a
general consensus in favor of environmental planning.\" That era of good
feeling fell apart, and in 1980, a new TRPA Compact and Governing Board
were created. By 1984, however, there was again conflict and litigation
in the Basin. Sabatier describes this as \"perhaps the most contentious
period in Lake Tahoe\'s history.\"

TRPA\'s Governing Board then appointed a new Executive Director, Bill
Morgan, who had been the Chief of the Lake Tahoe Basin Unit of the U.S.
Forest Service. Under Morgan\'s inspired leadership, a series of
consensus workshops were held, and after a couple years of negotiating,
a new regional plan was adopted. Hence, 1990 was a period of relative
calm.

During the late 1980s and into the 1990s, several collaborative groups
were formed to ease tensions and make progress. The most influential of
these was the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition,
which brought business, gaming, skiing and environmental groups together
to support restoration efforts. Still, by the time the 2001 survey was
conducted there was widespread concern that TRPA\'s actions had not yet
stemmed the deterioration of Lake Tahoe.

Currently, there is more hope that the Environmental Improvement Program
will help, and might, possibly, have already helped. TRPA is engaged in
a herculean effort to update environmental standards and amend the
regional plan. Would a 2003 survey show different results? It\'s hard to
tell. But, in 2001, here\'s how the 365 policy makers (or stakeholders,
if you prefer), who returned their questionnaires, ranked the importance
of environmental issues.

Water quality in Lake Tahoe was considered to be the foremost
environmental issue. In 1970 and 1984, by contrast, water quality only
ranked fourth. By 1990, it ranked second, and in 2001, it ranked first.
The rise in importance since 1984, was due in large part to a pronounced
change of attitude by the stake holder groups classed as
Business/Property Owners and Local Government/Public Utility District
Officials. Their scores on Water Quality roughly doubled since 1984.

Among the respondents, there was a general perception that there\'s too
much erosion and runoff caused by highways and roads, and road
construction. There was general agreement that the lake must not be
permitted to get any worse, but not much agreement with the statement
that \"water pollution must be reduced below its present level.\"
However, there was good agreement that building on high hazard lots
should be prohibited. The Business/Property Owners group increased their
support for this idea rather significantly since 1970.

Traffic congestion was the second most important environmental concern
in 2001. In 1970, it was considered to be third. The perceived
importance of traffic congestion rose to first place in 1984 and 1990,
and slipped to second place in 2001. Concerns with traffic were high
among all groups of stakeholders, though the Business/Property Owners
group rated it lower in 2001 than in earlier surveys.

All groups agreed that there are too many autos in the Basin, and that
auto use should be limited by improving public transportation. This
seems to be pretty consistent since 1970. There was no consensus on
using auto fees or road tolls to fund transportation. Business and
Property Owners, as well as Local Governments were against the idea
while Environmental Groups were for it. But, there was good agreement
for using sales tax to fund Public Transportation.

Fire risk was rated as tenth place in 1970, but increased to third place
by 2001. Perhaps it\'s because there are more and bigger trees today
than in 1970, and more homes are now nestled in the forest. It was
generally acknowledged that \"reducing fires requires cutting trees.\"
And the idea that \"thinning the forests would have negative impact on
visual resources\" was rejected. Forest Service planners who are
devising strategies for minimizing wildfires in the Basin will probably
find these results helpful.

There are many more interesting and important findings from these
surveys. So, we\'ll continue this discussion next time.

Send any comments to basinwatch@earthlink.net