Since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency must regulate how individuals develop their property within a fragile environment, controversy and criticism are no strangers. TRPA has been collecting research on the effects of development on Lake Tahoe's clarity for more than 35 years, and has set limits on the amount of land that buildings and pavement can cover, called land coverage , on an individual parcel (ranging from 1% in areas it deems to be highly sensitive areas to 30% in areas deemed to be least sensitive areas). The designation of sensitivity is at the sole discretion of the TRPA. Lake Tahoe residents, the State of California, environmental groups and property rights groups have repeatedly sued TRPA to change restrictions and fees in the Tahoe Region. 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. There is also concern over the scientific evidence TRPA uses to form its regulations. For example, for more than 20 years, the construction of new piers in "prime fish habitat" areas was prohibited. Still, later studies showed that some artificial structures in "feeding and escape cover" habitat areas could actually benefit fish populations. Criticism of TRPA often falls under the category of economics. Some business owners and homeowners express concern that they want more freedom to build or expand to realize the maximum value from their properties. TRPA says it works diligently to find innovative ways for property owners to develop their properties in environmentally sensitive ways and has created programs that balance environmental impacts through mitigation. Still, this claim is also disputed, with critics arguing that the TRPA is unaccountable and ignores the public. Mitigation measures usually take the form of fees used to fund environmental improvement and restoration projects. Still, there is no way for residents and businesses to verify whether the mitigation fees they paid were applied to actual environmental mitigation. Some feel that the fees amount to undue taxation, such as a per-day fee for visitors renting a passenger vehicle. In 2021, this fee was $5.50 per day, with the proceeds earmarked to fund public transportation, which some argue falls outside of the 1969 TRPA Charter. TRPA posts their fee schedule online which shows that homeowners and businesses must pay potentially thousands of dollars in parcel improvement application fees, including site assessment fees, Information Technology fees, surveys fees, processing fees, per square footage fees, and many other static and variable fees before an individual or business can even begin to plan for improvement to their private lot. The fees have been viewed as discriminatory in practice, with only wealthy residents and businesses able to afford them, compared to surrounding cities and counties. In 2005, in an effort to bring all buoys on the lake into compliance with current regulations, TRPA initially proposed a $5,000 fee for the first buoy and a $7,500 fee for the second. Many residents protested, believing the TRPA lacked the power to levy taxes. Due to public opposition and guidance from the TRPA Governing Board, a new proposal was made in 2006, reducing the permitting fee to $500 for the first buoy and $1,500 for the second. 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. The proposal, after two years of discussion, was supposed to be finalized in February 2007. But the
League to Save Lake Tahoe and the
Sierra Club, which want the pier moratorium to continue, continued to protest the changes. Furthermore, some California government agencies continue to question the environmental impacts of more piers. Other individuals and public interest groups feel that TRPA does not go far enough in strictly controlling development. They claim that, since Lake Tahoe belongs to everyone, property owners must take responsibility for the impacts of their development. 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. Other issues the agency is criticized for are fine amounts and local representation at the agency. TRPA fine amounts are generally around $5,000 for violations such as unpermitted tree cutting. While some critics say such fines aren't large enough, since a wealthy lakefront owner may happily pay that much to improve their view, others argue that it is further evidence of TRPA's overreaching expansion. Since TRPA is a bi-state entity with quasi-federal powers, state & local elected officials have little recourse in opposing the agency's strategies. Although half of the TRPA's 15-member Governing Board is made up of locally elected officials, there is public sentiment that they have only the courts to turn to for balance. If anyone contests the agency's decisions, they feel they are painted as being against the environment. Furthermore, critics of the agency have alleged that TRPA staff represent themselves as "locals", which is actually true of most of the board and the staff. However, a small percentage of staff members live outside the Tahoe basin, in nearby areas such as Carson City. Since staff are the individuals with whom most negotiations are conducted and who propose nearly all agenda items the Governing Board hears, there is local sentiment that the agency serves too few and is not working in the best interests of residents and businesses. A movement led by local property rights groups and real estate developers to have all Governing Board members elected by residents has been pushed for several years. Still, it has thus far been resisted by government officials and environmental groups, due to concern that environmental protection of the lake will be compromised in favor of development. An example of the controversy the agency faces is development in the shore zone. Lake Tahoe's shore zone is where the lake meets the land. Because of its relationship to the quality of scenery, recreation, and lake clarity, the shore zone is one of the most sensitive areas in the region. The
Environmental Protection Agency has designated Lake Tahoe as
Outstanding National Resource Waters under the
Clean Water Act. Having this special designation calls for a
non-degradation standard and a high level of protection. There are only three bodies of water on the
West Coast with this designation;
Mono Lake in
California, and
Crater Lake in
Oregon are the other two. The shore zone of Lake Tahoe has a long and challenging history. Regulations affecting the construction of piers, buoys, and other shore-zone-related issues have been the subject of extensive research and debate since the 1980s. The
Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association and others call for fewer restrictions on development, claiming that every lakefront 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 public access to beaches and inhibit kayaking along the shore. For more than 25 years, the TRPA has not allowed new structures such as piers in areas considered "prime fish habitat." These areas are still considered limited and fragile. However, the aforementioned scientific studies, conducted over 15 years, showed that 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. In 2005 and 2006, after 20 years of debate, the agency released an environmental document with alternatives that would allow some new development in the shore zone, but also balanced new development with programs that increased public beach access, protected sensitive areas, and set high development standards. 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 maman-madend natural environments. The agency says it understands that on some controversial issues, consensus isn't possible. But after robust collaboration between TRPA and the public, common ground can emerge, enabling the process to move forward. Even so, the shore zone changes remain in limbo. ==Angora Fire/Caldor Fire and backlash against TRPA==