A summary judgment ruling April 7 by U.S. District Judge John Mendez upheld the Tahoe Regional Plan Update, endorsing a new regulatory approach to protecting Lake Tahoe that emphasizes incentives for more centralized, better mitigated development. His decision helps to ratify a high-level accord that in 2011 and 2012 resolved political tensions between California and Nevada over shared governance of Lake Tahoe.
In perhaps a more sensible world, the 325,000-acre Lake Tahoe Basin would not be governed by two rival states, a handful of small cities, and embittered factions of environmentalists and resort-casino owners. Nor would it have miles of open highway or 55,000 year-round residents. Rather, it would be treated like the Grand Canyon, the Everglades, or any other of America's major natural wonders.
Last week the Nevada Legislature—usually not an entity with much to say on California land use—issued a decision that would make King Solomon blush.
After 31 years as a supposedly equal party in the Bi-State Compact governing the Lake Tahoe basin, Nevada has taken its first steps towards pulling out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and thereby negating the agreement under which the two states have governed and managed Lake Tahoe and the surrounding basin.
A legal battle between wealthy property owners on the shores of Lake Tahoe appears to have been won by a group wanting to build a new boat dock. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all arguments against the proposed dock presented by the Glenbrook Homeowners Association and allied parties, and the court upheld the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's approval of the project. >>read more
WASHINGTON _ Lake Tahoe area property owners seeking compensation for a moratorium on development first enacted two decades ago received a mixed reaction on January 7 from the two Supreme Court justices who hold the critical votes for their claims.