Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TRPA and its mission[1] are one-of-a-kind and represent an unprecedented attempt to address environmental, economic and cultural values at both regional and local levels.
While regulation is one of the pillars of the TRPA's plan, the agency also emphasizes the capital investment and scientific research components of its strategy which are embodied in the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP).
The TRPA governing board consists of 15 members[4] (members shown in italics are required to reside outside of the TRPA region): At present, the make up is composed of seven trained as attorneys (with the executive director licensed to practice law in Washington DC[5]), five elected politicians, two environmentalists, and the deputy director from the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
[6] Since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency must regulate how individuals develop their property within a fragile environment, controversy and criticism are no strangers.
[7][8][9][10][11] The charges levied against TRPA represent a wide range of grievances and displeasure with the Agency, claiming that the agency is too powerful, abusive or biased, exclusively run by non-elected officials, or applying selective environmental data that goes far beyond their mandate of environmental protection, and asserting restrictions on residents and development of private property violate a range of laws, including the Takings Clause in the U.S. constitution.
If the fee is approved, the agency claims it would be used to offset the impacts to water quality and to fund a watercraft and illegal buoy enforcement program.
Further, supporters of the agency's policies point out that comprehensive management strategies in communities across the nation are funded by assessing fees on the associated properties and participants who benefit the most from such impacts[citation needed].
Since TRPA is a bi-state entity with quasi-federal powers, state & local elected officials have little recourse in opposing the agency's strategies.
The Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association and others call for fewer restrictions on development, claiming that every lake front property owner should be allowed to build a pier.
Other groups, such as the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, argue that allowing hundreds of new piers will harm fish habitat and scenic quality, and will further block the public from access to beaches and will inhibit kayaking along the shore.
However, aforementioned scientific studies were conducted over a period of 15 years that showed protective measures could be taken to reduce the impacts of additional piers on the lake and that some underwater structures actually benefited fish populations in "feed and escape cover" habitat areas.
According to the agency, the shore zone example shows how TRPA attempts to serve all members of the public fairly by using the best available science and planning practices to protect Lake Tahoe and create a balance between the man made and natural environments.
Owners, developers' rights groups, and local real estate lobbyists immediately charged that the structures burned because of TRPA's strict environmental regulations.
While inconsistent with Cal Fire regulations, TRPA field staff prohibited property owners from establishing proper defensible space around their homes and required the laying down of newly fallen and highly flammable dry pine needles to serve as erosion control in favor of lake clarity.
However, in post fire hearings stating this position, those that lost their homes were so infuriated that security escorts were required to protect TRPA Staff's exit.
Prompted by local newspaper articles quoting allegations of TRPA staff forcing homeowners to pile dry pine needles and other flammable materials around their homes, and even up against the structures, creating dangerous fire hazards, state and local politicians reacted swiftly by calling for investigations into TRPA policies and staff misconduct.
Ground cover may often be lawn or other landscaping, however site-specific native vegetation, or naturally occurring forest litter such as a thin layer of pine needles or wood chips, is generally the environmentally preferable alternative, and is more cost-effective and easier to maintain.
While some groups argue that utilizing pine needles and wood chips as ground cover up to the 30-foot perimeter of a structure is a violation of California Public Resources Code 4291 requiring defensible space in California, a 0.5 to 1 inch (13 to 25 mm) covering of forest litter (duff layer), once decay has taken place, is not sufficient to carry a flame[disputed – discuss] intense enough to burn structures from a distance of 30-feet away[citation needed].
In August/September 2021, during the Caldor fire,[citation needed] government crews cut large swaths to the bare soil and aggressively thinned neighboring forests to protect the city.
As a result, significant tree thinning without the required TRPA permits and removal of freshly fallen pine needles to the bare ground occurred widely.
