Date: 2000-10-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as Imay consume. Mr. Speaker. Lake Tahoe is owned jointly by the State of California and the State of Nevada and is one of the largest. deepest. clearest lakes in the world. Yet the lake isexperiencing an environmental crisis. Water clarity has declined from a visibility level of 105 feet in 1967 to 70 feet in 1999. Scientists believe damage to Tahoes clarity could be irreversible within a decade. Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin are dead or dying and pose a risk to cata.strophic fire. Thirty percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been contaminated by MTBE. a gasoline additive. A number of factors have contributed to the basins and lakes deterioration. among them land disturbance. erosion.. air pollution. fertilizers. runoff. and boating activity. Following a Presidential forum. the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimated that it will cost $900 million over the next 10 yearg to restore the lake. Since 1980. Nevada and California contributions to the effort have exceeded $230 million. In 1997. Nevada authorized- a bond issuance of $82 million over a 10year period. California has appropriated $60 million of a $275 million commitment. In addition. a coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups have. also pledged to raise $300 million. H.R. 3388 would authorize $300 million. a third of the total cost on a matching basis over 10 years for environmental restoration projects at Lake Tahoe. The bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a priority list of projects to address air quality. fisheries. noise. recreation. scenic resources. soil conservation. forest health. water quality. and wildlife. The bill would require that the Secretary give priority to projects involving erosion and sediment control. acquisition of environmentally sensitive land. fire risk reduction in urban areas and urbanwildland interface. MTBE cleanup. and management of parking and traffic. This is a very healthy and ambitious agenda. These projects would account for $200 million. Another million dollars will be granted to the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority and local utility districts to address well and water contamination. Finally. the bill would authorize $1 million to local authorities for erosion control activities. water quality. and soil conservation projects on nonFederal land. Much of this activity requires extensive consultation with State. regional. and local authorities. I note that the bill is virtually identical to the one of Senator FEINSTEINS passed in the Senate on October 5. There is no reason why we should not be taking up that bill and sending it to the President. Although I do not support the limited acquisition authority in the bill. I support this legislation. and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I also want to say that I think that certainly the local governments and the private business community should be commended for the efforts that they are undertaking to dramatically alter the activities. many of which I think will. in fact. be enhanced when they are completed. but will provide for better transportation. for less contamination of the lake. for greater setbacks and protections of the lake. which is one of the great. great natural assets of our two States and one in which the people of both Nevada and California have a great deal of pride in. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.