The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada, which the U.S. Congress ratified. The agency is mandated to protect the Lake Tahoe basin's environment through land-use regulations. It is one of only a few watershed-based regulatory agencies in the United States.
Mission TRPA and its mission are one-of-a-kind and represent an unprecedented attempt to address environmental, economic, and cultural values at both regional and local levels. The agency is the lead organization responsible for creating and implementing region-wide protection solutions. The agency is a symbol of environmental responsibility and stewardship and provides a legal means to govern the region. TRPA is recognized throughout the world for what it contributes to the science of resource protection. Much of the effort put forth is groundbreaking, and the problems addressed have no textbook remedies. This is, in part, what makes the agency a lightning rod, attracting a wide range of opinions and emotions.
The TRPA has adopted a three-pronged strategy to restore the environment of Lake Tahoe:
Implement a regulatory program minimizing the negative impacts of new development. Improve the environment through a $1.5 billion capital improvement program, repairing damage caused by past development. Scientifically research the effectiveness of the regulatory and capital improvement programs.
The regulatory program has been in place for more than 35 years, and the TRPA evaluates itself every five years. 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).
TRPA is primarily an environmental agency, but recognizes the interdependency of environmental, economic, and social well-being in the Tahoe Region. Environmental groups, property rights advocates, business interests, and numerous government agencies agree that tourism and successful, locally owned businesses are the key to economic vitality at Lake Tahoe and depend on the region's environment. The TRPA Regional Plan is intended to set a measured rate of residential, commercial, and recreational growth, the impacts of which are controlled through mitigation measures.
Governance The TRPA governing board consists of 15 membersBistate Compact (article III and section 3) (members shown in italics are required to reside outside of the TRPA region): California delegation (7 members): One member appointed by the El Dorado County board of supervisors One member appointed by the Placer County board of supervisors One member appointed by the South Lake Tahoe city council Two members appointed by the Governor of California One member appointed by the speaker of the California State Assembly One member appointed by the California State Senate rules committee Nevada delegation (7 members): One member appointed by the Douglas County board of county commissioners One member appointed by the Washoe County board of county commissioners One member appointed by the Carson City board of supervisors One member appointed by the Governor of Nevada The Nevada Secretary of State (or his designee) The director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (or his designee) One member chosen by the other members of the Nevada delegation One non-voting member chosen by the President of the United States At present, the make up is composed of seven trained as attorneys (with the executive director licensed to practice law in Washington DC), five elected politicians, two environmentalists, and the deputy director from the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Controversy and criticism 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.