EPA-600/5-74 019
October 1974
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
Influences on Wastewater
Management On Land Use:
Tahoe Basin 1950 - 1972
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and appli-
cation of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum inter-
face in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIQECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining
varying impacts of alternative policies, analyses of environmental plan-
ning techniques at the regional, state and local levels, and approaches
to measuring environmental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of
ecological and economic impacts of environmental protection measures.
Such topics as urban form, industrial mix, growth policies, control and
organizational structure are discussed in terms of optimal environmental
performance. These interdisciplinary studies and systems analyses are
presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses to manage-
ment and policy-oriented reports.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Vat sals by the Superintendent of Documents, U.8. Giwnimout Printing Ollko, Washington, 11.C. mWi - I'rluo $2.M
-------
EPA-600/5-74-019
October 1974
INFLUENCES ON WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
ON LAND USE: TAHOE BASIN 1950-1972
by
James E. Pepper
and
Robert E. Jorgensen
Contract No. 68-01-1842
Program Element 1HA095
21AZC/03
Project Officer
Harold V. Kibby
Ecological Impact Analysis Staff
Washington Environmental Research Center
Washington, DC 20U60
Prepared For
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The widespread use of environmental impact analysis as a means of achiev-
ing Federal agency decision-making responsive to environmental concerns
was initiated by the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. The Act required that Federal agencies prepare statements assessing
the environmental impact of their major actions significantly affecting
the human environment. In subsequent years Federal agencies developed
procedures for the preparation of environmental impact statements, often
requiring similar analyses and statements from local governments and the
private sector as a requirement for the award of Federal permits or grants.
In addition, some states adopted environmental impact statement require-
ments. Recent revisions of guidelines for the preparation of Federal impact
statements, issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, have defined
clear requirements as to what can be expected in impact statements from
Federal agencies. However, such uniformity of procedures and approach has
not been extended below the Federal level on either Federal agency require-
ments or individual state requirements. Further, while the guidelines
may specify what is desired in Federal impact statements, technical approach-
es to meeting these objectives may not always be available and universally
acceptable.
As a part of its series of Socioeconomic Environmental Studies, the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, is
conducting research whose objectives are to:
Improve the technical quality of environmental impact
analyses in areas of Agency responsibility.
Improve the ability of the Agency to provide substantive
technical review of environmental impact statements pre-
pared by other agencies, and
Improve the effectiveness of the use of environmental
impact analyses in influencing decision-making at all
governmental levels.
The Council on Environmental Quality's new guidelines requires that impact
statements from Federal agencies also address the problem o.f stimulated
growth associated with proposed actions and the environmental impact of
that growth. This publication is part of a series of reports designed to
assess such secondary impacts associated with highway and wastewater col-
lection and treatment facilities. The report is a comprehensive analysis
of the impact that wastewater facilities have had in a high mountain re-
creational area of national significance. The study was conducted by
James E. Pepper and his Associates at the University of California, Santa
Cruz, under contract from the Ecological Studies and Technology Assessment
Branch, Implementation Research Division.
B. Royce', Di rector-x
Ecological Impact Analysis Staff
Washington Environmental Research Center
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Statistical analysis indicates that wastewater infrastructure projects
have had a significant influence on the land use pattern in the Lake
Tahoe Basin. Land use densities have increased immediately following the
expansion of plant capacities in areas serviced by three of the four
major wastewater treatment facilities. The subdivision approval rate of
raw land was also found to be a function of anticipated treatment capa-
city. Federal and state water quality agencies played an active and
central role in wastewater management programs designed to remove the
threat of water pollution at Lake Tahoe. Cooperation among all levels
of government led to expeditious resolution of the water quality problem
in spite of the numerous geographic, economic and political constraints
in the region. However, the provision of sewerage facilities also removed
land development constraints. Local governments, acting without coordinated
land use policies, permitted intensive land uses which could not have
occurred with septic tank treatment. These increases in land use have
subsequently produced major environmental problems in the Tahoe Basin.
Thus the singular focus on water quality led to unforeseen environmental
impacts resulting from the land use changes made possible by the pro-
vision of extensive sewerage systems.
"This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-1842
under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Development, Environ-
mental Protection Agency."
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD .............................. f
ABSTRACT ....................................... ...
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. iv
FIGURES ......
....................................... vm
TABLES ................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... x1v
I CONCLUSIONS .................................... -,
H RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 5
HI INTRODUCTION .......................... 7
Statement of the Research Problem
Purpose and Scope of the Research
IV ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ISSUES ...................... 10
A New Dimension in Public Policy
The Issue at Lake Tahoe
Land Use
V CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN ........... 17
Physical and Biological Characteristics
Social and Economic Characteristics
Institutional and Regulatory Characteristics
Growth and Development Context
Conceptual Model
Development Models
VI QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................. 29
Summary of Findings
iv
-------
SECTION PAGE
VI QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS continued 31
Quantitative Changes in Land Use and Wastewater
Management
Measures of Land Use Development
Level 3—Conceptualized and Planned Development
Level 4—Legally Committed Development
Level 5—Physical Development
Measures of Wastewater Management Activity
Level a—Conceptualized Development
Level 4—Legally Committed Development
Level 5—Physical Development
Relationships Between Land Use and Wastewater
Management Activity
Data Characteristics
Statistical Analysis
Fi ndi ngs
Subdivision of Marginal Lands
VII POLICY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 64
Selected Findings
Government Response to Lake Tahoe Water Pollution
Concerns
Federal and State Programs
Influence of Water Quality Projects on Land Use
Local Sewerage District Activities
The Critical Relationship Between Wastewater
Treatment and Water Supply
-------
SECTION PAGE
VII POLICY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION continued 64
Local and Regional Regulation of Land Use
Subdivision Control
The Transition from Local to Regional Planning
TRPA Land Use Controls
TRPA Concerns for Wastewater Management
VIII OVERVIEW AND PROSPECT 92
Descriptive Model
Conceptual Framework
Components
Structure
Period One: '1950-1959
Period Two: 1960-1969
Period Three: 1970 to present
Prospect
Wastewater Management
Stormwater Runoff Management
Water Supply
Transportation
Energy Use
Land Use Control
Recreation
Summary
vi
-------
SECTION PAGE
IX REFERENCES 105
X ABBREVIATIONS 126
XI APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — Chronical of Influential Events
and Decisions: Lake Tahoe
Basin 1950-1972 127
APPENDIX B -- Statutory and Regulatory Context 139
APPENDIX C — Population Projections 148
APPENDIX D — Statistical Analysis 154
APPENDIX E — Land Use and Wastewater
Management Data Sets 166
vn
-------
FIGURES
Page
Figure III - i Environmental Quality: Relationships Between
Land Use and Wastewater Management 8
Figure IV - 1 TRPA Regional Plan: Environmental Impact
Summary .
Figure IV - 2 Congruence Among Land Use Levels as an Indicator
of Responsiveness to Environmental Policy 15
Figure V - 1 Lake Tahoe Location Map 19
Figure V - 2 Public Land Ownership - Lake Tahoe Basin 21
Figure V - 3 Political Geography - Lake Tahoe Basin 22
Figure V - 4 Sewerage Districts - Lake Tahoe Basin 24
Figure V - 5 Sewage Treatment Plants and Export Lines -- Lake
Tahoe Basin
Figure V - 6 Conceptual Model of Land Development Process --
Lake Tahoe Basin 1950-1972 26
Figure VI - 1 Timing of Wastewater Management Facility Provision
and Expansion 43
Figure VII - l Wastewater Grant Review Process (California) ... 72
Figure VIII - 1 Conceptual Model of Land Development Process --
Lake Tahoe Basin 1950-1972 94
Figure VIII - 2 Descriptive Model - Period One: 1950-1959 .... 95
Figure VIII - 3 Descriptive Model - Transition: Period One
Period Two .97
viii
-------
PAGE
Figure VIII - 4 Descriptive Model — Period Two: 1960-1969 ... 98
Figure VIII - 5 Descriptive Model — Transition: Period Two
Period Three 99
Figure VIII - 6 Descriptive Model — Period Three: 1970-Present. 101
Figure C - 1 Comparison of Ultimate/Saturation Population
Projections
IX
-------
TABLES
Table IV - 1 Generic Influences on the Land Development
Process !4
Table V - 1 Dominant Characteristics of the Land Development
Process: Lake Tahoe Region, Major Periods
1950-1972 28
Table VI - 1 Measures of Land Development: Land Use and
Wastewater Management 30
Table VI - 2 Acreage Comparison of Land Use Categories Indicated
on Interim Plan and TRPA Plan 32
Table VI - 3 Number of Subdivided Lots Approved for Lake Tahoe
Basin by County 1950-1972 33
Table VI - 4 Building Permits Issued for Housing Units --
Lake Tahoe Basin 1960-1970 34
Table VI - 5 Building Permits Issued for Condominium Units —
Lake Tahoe Basin 1960-1970 34
Table VI - 6 U.S. Housing Starts 1960-1970 35
Table VI - 7 Assessed Value — Lake Tahoe Basin 1950-1970 ... 36
Table VI - 8 Population Estimates — Lake Tahoe Basin 1950-1970. 36
Table VI - 9 Total Housing Units — Lake Tahoe Basin
1960-1970 37
Table VI - 10 Dwelling Units - Lake Tahoe Basin (Field
Check April 1971) 37
-------
Page
Table VI - 11
Table VI
Table VI
Table VI
Table VI
Table VI
12.
13
14
15
16
Table VI - 17
Table VI - 18
Table VI
Table VI
19
20
Table VI - 21
Table VI - 22
Table VI
Table VI
Table VI
Table VI
23
24
25
26
Gaming Revenues -- Nevada Counties with Urban
Areas in Lake Tahoe Basin
Skier Days -- Lake Tahoe Basin 1960-1972
Motor Vehicles Entering Tahoe Basin 1950-1972 . .
Average Daily Peak Month Sewage Flows and Plant
Capacities
Summary of Sewerage District Development
Calculated Peak Population Assuming Various Per
Capita Flows — Lake Tahoe Basin 1970
Data Classification Showing Characteristics of
Longitudinal Change
Past, Existing and Projected Development of
Counties -- Lake Tahoe Basin
Data Sets for Statistical Analysis
Data Set Categories and Variables for Correlation
and Regression Analysis
Regression Analysis — STPUD Treatment Plant
Capacity
Regression Analysis ~ North Tahoe PUD and Tahoe
City PUD Treatment Plant Capacity
Land Use Variable Framework for T-Test Groups . .
T-Test Results — El Dorado County (STPUD) . . . .
T-Test Results -- Douglas County (DCSID#1) . . . .
T-Test Results — Placer County (NTPUD and TCPUD).
38
39
40
41
42
45
46
48
49
50
52
53
55
56
57
58
XI
-------
PAGE
Table VI - 27 T-Test Results — Washoe County (IVGID) 59
Table VI - 28 Comparison of Slope Categories of Subdivided Land ~
5-Year Periods 1950-1970 61
Table VI - 29 Comparison of Land Capabilities of Subdivided
Land — 5-Year Periods 1950-1970 63
Table VII - 1 Present (1972) and Projected Water Use in the
Tahoe Basin 80
Table VII - 2 Comparison of Approved Subdivision Acreage and
General Plan Acreage (1970) 8^
Table VII - 3 Interim Plan Land Use Acreage Population Capacity. . 85
Table VII - 4 TRPA Land Capability Districts 88
Table VII - 5 Land Use District Acreage Net Reductions Under
TRPA Plan -- Tally by County 89
Table VII - 6 Land Use District Acreage Net Reductions Under
TRPA Plan — Tally by Wastewater Management
District 90
Table VIII - 1 Descriptive Model Elements and Measures 93
Table C - 1 Predicted Saturation Population of Service Area , . 150
Table D - 1 Correlation Coefficients — El Dorado County . . . 156
Table D - 2 Correlation Coefficients — Placer County 157
Table D - 3 Correlation Coefficients — Douglas County .... 158
Table D - 4 Correlation Coefficients — Washoe County .... 159
Table D - 5 Summary of Factor Analysis 160
Table D - 6 Summary of Step-Wise Regression Equations -- El
Dorado County 162
xii
-------
PAGE
Table D - 7 Summary of Step-Wise Regression Equations —
Placer County 163
xiii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It took the gracious contribution of each of these persons to produce
this report. The faculty, staff, and students are associated with the
Environmental Studies Program, University of California, Santa Cruz.
James E. Pepper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning
Principal Investigator
Robert E. Jorgensen, Administrative Analyst
Gerald D. Bowden, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
Jennifer Anderson, Administrative Assistant
Kathy Johnston, Production Assistant and Editing
John Ashbaugh, Undergraduate Research Associate
Jeff Griggs, Undergraduate Research Associate
Jack Liebster, Undergraduate Research Associate
Steve Mills, Undergraduate Research Associate
Barbara-Jo Novitski, Statistician and Programmer
Robert Aston, Programmer
Polly McKeever, Supervisor, Services to Academic Staff
Terry Drager, Environmental Assistant
Helen Sherra, Administrative Services Officer
The following consultants provided their expertise.
John Bihary, Land economics and assessment practices
Tim Campbell, Mathematical modeling and regional planning
Michael Fajans, Statistical analysis
Douglass Lee, Research methodologies
P. H. McGauhey, Wastewater management
William Zion, Utility financing
Mary Helen Pope, Report Editing
In addition, special thanks to:
TRPA staff: Richard Heikka, Pete Hoi lick, Bill Kramer
USFS: Harry Siebert
Lake Tahoe Area Council
EPA: John Wise, San Francisco Regional Office; Harold Kibby
Project Officer, and Ed Royce, Chief of Ecological Studies
and Technology Assessment Branch
Also to numerous staff from county government offices, sewerage dis-
tricts, and engineering consultants.
xiv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are logically organized into three general categories:
the effects on environmental quality of the interaction of changing land
uses and expanded wastewater management facilities; the impacts and in-
fluences of the provision of wastewater management facilities on land
use patterns; and the influences of land use activities on the develop-
ment of wastewater facilities.
Effects on Environmental Quality
The environmental problems attributed to land development in the Lake
Tahoe Basin are the result of a combination of the inadequate exercise
of land use controls and the growth-indueing influence of the provision
of extensive advanced sewage treatment and export facilities.
The ineffectiveness of land use controls in maintaining environmental
quality in the Tahoe Basin has been strongly influenced by a variety of
factors. Prior to formulation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA) Plan in 1970-71, local land use planners and decision makers
failed to consider the impacts of proposed land uses on the fragile
natural environment of the region. The magnitude of the adverse
environmental effects resulting from the extensive subdivision activity
in the Basin was not apparent until the slow, incremental process of
actual residential construction reached a critical point, often many
years after the subdivision approval.
Fragmentation of political jurisdictions and geographic remoteness of
County Seats effectively excluded both permanent and seasonal residents
from an active voice in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the
remoteness from metropolitan areas did not allow for adequate protection
of the state and national public interest in Tahoe Basin resources and
amenities.
Provision of the extensive sewage treatment and export facilities In the
Basin is largely the result of Federal and State agencies undertaking a
strictly technological approach to wastewater management in order to
remove the threat of septic pollution. Wastewater management programs
were conceived and implemented without consideration of the consequent
environmental problems associated with the potential land development
and populations to be served by the projects.
-------
Statistical analysis indicates that the provision and expansion of these
wastewater management facilities has had a significant and direct in-
fluence on the location, type, and intensity of land development.
Since the present environmental quality issues (including sedimentation,
eutrophication, revegetation, scenic degradation, air pollution and
traffic congestion) are a result of the pattern and type of land de-
velopment and use, the role of wastewater management is directly related
to these broader environmental quality issues.
Influences of Wastewater Management on Land Use Patterns
Land use planning and wastewater management planning were large]/ con-
ducted as independent functions; there is little evidence to suggest"
thai even minimum coordination has occurred.
Wastewater management officials have not played any direct or significant
role in land use planning in the Tahoe Basin except for isolated cases
where land development was temporarily denied on the basis of officially
reported inadequate sewage treatment capacity. Wastewater management
concerns were not a central consideration in the formulation of the
TRPA Plan during 1970-1971. In spite of the magnitude of public in-
vestment in wastewater facilities in the Tahoe Basin (an estimated $82
million) the location of on-line facilities was not a factor in deter-
mining the population distribution indicated on the TRPA Plan.
Recently proposed wastewater management facilities have been acknowledged
to be in conflict with the TRPA land use plan. A 1973 Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the proposed expansion of the Tahoe City PUD
system indicated that the project would encourage residential develop-
ment in an area prohibited for development by the TRPA Plan. The
responsibility for resolving the land use conflict was explicitly re-
ferred to the land use planning body and essentially avoided by the
proponent agency.
Population estimates and projections dsed in wastewater facility calcu-
lations generally exceeded a reasonable interpretation of availabTe
data:~~
Estimates and projections of permanent, seasonal, and peak populations
for the Tahoe Basin vary dramatically. The techniques used were gen-
erally based on questionable assumptions, lacked methodological rigor,
and employed data of poor quality. The actual figures appear to range
beyond reasonable tolerances necessary for responsible public decision-
making.
The decision-making processes related to both land use development and
the provision of wastewater facilities suffered from inadequate informa-
tion.
-------
In spite of the large public land ownership in the Basin (62%), and the
magnitude of public investment in sewage facilities, public agencies con-
sistently failed to develop adequate information in support of their
decision-making processes. Numerous contradictions appear in avail-
able data. Although the TRPA subsequently developed a substantial set
of data in the preparation of the regional plan, major data gaps still
exist.
Limitations on water supply were not Central considerations in waste-
water management planning in spite of acknowledged water supply de-
ficiencies in the Tahoe Basin.
Although the still unratified Bi-State Water Compact has identified the
Tahoe Basin as a water deficient area and would place tight limitations
on allocations of Basin water, the adequacy of water supplies has not
been considered in wastewater management planning. As in the case of
land use planning, there is little evidence of cooperation or concern
between the public agencies responsible for these related functions.
The provision of wastewater management facilities has contributed to
significant changes in the land use pattern in the Tahoe Basin.
Major expansions of wastewater treatment facilities have been directly
followed by two substantial changes in the intensity of land use: the
number of lots per acre has increased significantly in subdivisions;
and large increases in higher density residential and commercial land
uses have occurred.
In some cases subdivision activity has shown a strong statistical rela-
tionship to anticipated increases in treatment plant capacities. This
may indicate that land speculation was stimulated by the anticipated
provision or expansion of wastewater management facilities. Skiing and
gaming activities correlated strongly with increased treatment capa-
city. Thus the availability of advanced sewage treatment may be con-
sidered as a great influence on the growth of intensive commercial
recreation in the Tahoe Basin.
The increases in multiple family dwelling units and motel-hotel units
shown have a similar relationship to increased plant capacity, and high-
density residential and tourist accommodations may also be considered
as uses dependent on the availability of wastewater treatment capacity.
Influences of Land Use on the Development of Wastewater Facilities
The determination of quantitative relationships indicating a direct in-
fluence of land use activities on the development of wastewateT
management facilities poses considerable difficulty due to the dynamic
nature of the land development process in the Tahoe Basin.
-------
It is clear that the initial impetus for providing wastewater manage-
ment facilities was directly related to the septic pollution resulting
from land use activities. The subsequent influences of land develop-
ment are more problematic.
Provision of sewage treatment facilities has been explicitly acknowledged
to be a precondition for the establishment of gaming facilities in the
Nevada portion of the Tahoe Basin. However, no quantitative tests can
determine the magnitude of influence of gaming interests on the develop-
ment of wastewater facilities.
Although increases in commercial recreation and intensive residential
uses show a strong statistical relationship to expanded treatment
plant capacities, there is no available data which indicate a causal
relationship between these land uses and the provision of sewage
facilities.
Subdivision lot approvals provide the most complete and reliable land
use time-series data, however no causal relationship was established
measuring the influence of subdivision activity on the development of
wastewater management facilities.
The planning and development of wastewater management facilities appears
to have been considerably influenced by the development-oriented lanci
MCA ft! «Vt*» *1 M. J —/—."TJ _ • "~~ -~~-Wf,*~ra^*--mm" "L ^""——•••••^^^^^••1 •« «l I IB-—™ M..J.M.V BmMMMHIBH^^V |l •. M^^V^HW
use plans and policies of local governmentsT
The direct relationships between local or regional land use plans and
wastewater management planning have proved difficult to establish.
Prior to adoption of the TRPA Plan, local governments indicated very
extensive acreages of land on their general plans for residential and
commercial uses. Special districts with responsibilities for waste-
water management expanded their boundaries accordingly to include these
potentially developable lands.
Although the population figures used for actual wastewater sizing and
phasing calculations were generally developed by independent consulting
engineering firms, the population estimates and projections derived
from data in local general plans had a considerable influence on the
magnitude of consultants' figures.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The EPA should require that proposed wastewater management projects be
consistent with environmentally based land use plans. Therefore the
EPA should strengthen the grant review and environmental impact state-
ment processes to require a thorough environmental quality assessment
of land use plans for areas served or affected by proposed projects.
An evaluation of the likely land use impacts of proposed projects would
ensure that environmentally sound land use plans are not pre-empted by
growth-inducing wastewater projects. If proposed wastewater management
projects are found to support or induce growth which would lead to
major adverse environmental impacts, the EPA should withhold funding.
The priorities for project funding should support the resolution of
serious water quality problems, but project capacities should be
governed by the "growth-inducing--adverse environmental impact" rela-
tionship cited above.
The EPA grant review and environmental impact statement process should
require a detailed discussion of the assumptions and methods used in
population projections for facility sizing. Projects supported by fea-
sibility studies which fail to conform to this requirement should not
be approved.
The EPA should establish guidelines for developing the data base and
methods necessary for local agencies to measure the potential growth-
inducing impacts of federally funded wastewater management facilities.
The actual development of information and methods should be undertaken
by the appropriate local or state agency.
The EPA should undertake research on land use infrastructure relation-
ships in areas with a more typical urbanization pattern and a richer
data base than the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The EPA should encourage and support technical research to develop
water-conserving and small scale sewage disposal systems that would be
economically suitable for seasonal and ; second-home communities.
The EPA should require that TRPA prepare a sound regional wastewater
management plan, prior to making further federal commitments to fund
wastewater facilities in the Tahoe Basin.
-------
The TRPA should identify and delineate additional air, water and land
resource capabilities to strengthen the present Land Capability system.
The composite of these resource capabilities may, in fact, limit even
further the amount of urbanization which can be supported by the region's
fragile environment without substantially lowering environmental quality.
Therefore the TRPA should establish an information system to provide the
necessary baseline data to monitor changes in population, land use, and
environmental quality. The system should include consistent methods to
standardize, catalog, store and retrieve data.
The TRPA should also establish a planning information base for all ex-
isting infrastructure systems, especially those requisite for land
development, i.e., wastewater management, transportation, water supply,
and energy. Data collection should include information on existing
capacities, planned or projected patterns of system expansion, critical
project sizes for economic efficiency, phasing of infrastructure elements
in relation to each other, alternative technologies, and impacts or
influences of the systems on the pattern of land use. This infrastructure
information should be fully utilized in the ongoing TRPA planning pro-
cess, especially in project and plan review or modification.
The TRPA should undertake a thorough study of the impact of water supply
limitations on regional land use planning, particularly in view of the
proposed Bi-State Water Compact allocations and the volume of domestic
water required for the export of sewage from the Basin.
The TRPA should examine the spatial implications of its policies and of
those of other agencies with authority over Tahoe Basin resources. Hypo-
thetical consequences of various policies on the land use pattern are
discussed in scenario form in Section VIII—Overview and Prospect
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Research Problem
The relationships between wastewater management systems and land use
patterns are largely unknown. As extensive and advanced sewerage
systems replace septic tanks or inadequate existing systems, changes
in surrounding land use occur.
The aims of this research are:
1) to identify the type and magnitude of influences that the
approval, construction, and operation of wastewater management
systems have had on land use patterns and land use intensity in
the Lake Tahoe Basin from 1950 to the present;
2) to determine and measure specific structural relationships
between the location, capacity and timing of wastewater management
systems, and the range of critical variables such as zoning,
subdivision, interest rates, etc., which influence land develop-
ment processes;
3) to express the relationships between wastewater management
systems and land use patterns through appropriate qualitative and
quantitative analytical methods;
4) to approach the research problem from a planning and policy
analysis perspective; and
5) to develop a simple predictive method of expressing relation-
ships between sewer service, population growth, land use, and
environmental quality in the Tahoe Basin.
Infrastructure systems (wastewater management, transportation, water
supply, energy, etc.) establish the structure and boundaries for the
land development process. Often the relationship of infrastructure to
development is direct and immediate (e.g., no construction is possible
without roads to transport building materials; no occupancy permits
are issued without water, sewer, and power hookups). The indirect
influences of infrastructure systems on development are more difficult
to determine and assess. It is clear however that the process of
planning and regulating land use is a direct function of the develop-
ment of infrastructure systems.
-------
Environmental quality issues provided the impetus for the research.
The direct impacts of land use on environmental quality have been
central issues in the Lake Tahoe Basin for two decades. However,
wastewater management may provide a crucial link between land use
and subsequent impacts on environmental quality. Figure III-l
illustrates the linkages among these three elements, and as an
example traces a septic pollution problem and its technological
solution through subsequent changes in land use and environmental
quality.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DUALITY
solution to
water pollu-
tion problem
land us* champs
leading to scenic degradation;
air pollution; erosion, sedi-
mentation, lake e«troph1cat1on
LAND USE
i :
T
water pollutlor
I
i
VASTFWATER
MAHAGCNCNT *
1 Septic Tanks \
Treatment Systems
wastewater
disposal
Influence change
1n location, rat*
and Intensity
of land use
F1Sure III - 1: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND USE AW WASTEWATER WWGCKENT
A water pollution problem (1) resulting from septic tank disposal of
wastewater (generated by residential and commercial land use) was
solved by the provision of advanced wastewater collection and treatment
systems (2). These systems, with capacities to service an extremely
large projected population, may have in turn significantly influenced
the land use pattern (3) through stimulating or accelerating land
development. The increased rate, density and extent of land use then
contributed to a reduction in environmental quality (4) through
increased soil erosion and sedimentation (thus increasing the likelihood
of lake eutrophication). Air pollution and noise also increased
appreciably from the magnitude of development. Substantial scenic
degradation occurred from the development of steep, highly visible
lands, and lands contiguous to the infrastructure corridor.
Although the three elements constitute a whole system, the research
emphasis is directed at the interrelationships between the land use
and wastewater management elements. Existing research is used to
establish important relationships between these two elements and
environmental quality.
8
-------
Purpose and Scope of the Research
Since the Environmental Protection Agency should be directly concerned
with all aspects of environmental protection relating to wastewater
management, the research perspective was directed toward but not
limited to the agency's functions in;
1) the review process for approving and administering clean water
grants;
2) the preparation and review of Environmental Impact Statements;
3) the coordination of federal agencies involved in environmental
protection issues;
4) the analysis, review and formulation of policy relating to
comprehensive environmental protection programs;
5) the role of environmental protection in developing National
Land Use Policies; and
6) the development of research programs related to the advance-
ment of wastewater management technologies.
The research covers the time period from 1950-1972. During this period
numerous factors such as new statutes, policies, studies and reports,
plans changes in public attitudes and behavior, changes in public
officials, etc., have influenced land development in the Tahoe Basin.
Major policy changes in both wastewater management and land use plan-
ning have also occurred during the past 23 years. The consequent
influence of these factors on the evolving land use pattern will be
analyzed and evaluated.
The geographic boundary of the study is defined by the perimeter of the
Lake s tributary watersheds, covering an area of approximately 500
square miles.
As a research area, the Lake Tahoe Basin presents an unusual combination
of land use influences and determinants: the political geography
includes portions of two states and six counties; the regional economy
is dominated by the second home market, tourism and commercial recre-
ation; land ownership is divided between the public and private sectors;
the area is a scenic and recreation amenity of acknowledged national
significance; and legalized gaming is present in the Nevada portion of
the Basin. It is expected that the research findings will be directly
applicable to other areas where these conditions occur, but must be
appropriately modified under different conditions.
-------
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ISSUES
A New Dimension in Public Policy
During the past decade growing national concern over the quality of the
environment has led to the enactment of major environmental quality
legislation at both the federal and state levels. The passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, and the creation of
the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 are milestones in the quest
for quality of both life and environment. Section 102C of NEPA, which
requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to
any federal action (project) which might have a significant effect on
the human environment has placed the concept of environmental impacts
squarely within the public decision-making process.
Initially, emphasis was placed on determining the direct and immediate
physical impacts of a project. Subsequently, concern over the land use
impacts of a project prompted the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
to require consideration of growth-inducing impacts in the preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements (CEQ, 1973). Thus the scale and
type of analysis necessary to identify and evaluate impacts has changed
significantly (Sorensen and Moss, 1972).
By factoring generic impacts such as water pollution, noise, earth
movement, scenic loss, etc., into specific environmental condition
changes, definitive environmental costs and benefits of a project can be
determined (Sorensen and Pepper, 1973). Only if these impacts can be
expressed in terms of social or economic costs or benefits can environ-
mental quality be systematically included in a rational decision-making
process.
A substantial amount of research has been conducted on direct and
secondary impacts of specific project types including wastewater
collection and treatment systems (Sorensen and Pepper, 1973). However,
since the land use changes resulting from a project remain undetermined,
an assessment of the total magnitude of environmental impacts resulting
from a project remains extremely limited.
It is clear that an accurate and complete assessment of the environ-
mental impacts of an infrastructure project should include the impacts
of land use changes resulting from the project. Without this information
the cumulative impacts of a project cannot be included in the calculus
of project costs and benefits.
10
-------
The Issue at Lake Tahoe
The environmental quality issue has been central to land use planning
and management in the Tahoe Basin for decades (Jackson and Pisam',1972;
1973). As the region changed from a resort area to what is now a
rapidly urbanizing recreation center, concern for environmental quality
reached the state and federal levels.
In 1967 an extensive report issued by the (bi-state) Lake Tahoe Joint
Study Committee declared;
there is a distinct risk that, unless public policy
arrests present trends, there will be a cumulative
degeneration in the overall environment of the Lake
Tahoe Region (Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committee, 1967, p. 9).
The committee clearly recognized the source of environmental degeneration
in stating, "the basic pressure upon the carrying capacity of the
Region arises from the over-intensive use of land (and space)" (Lake
Tahoe Joint Study Committee, 1967, p. 9).
In 1969 Congress consented to the California-Nevada Tahoe Regional
Planning Compact, thus establishing the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA). The enabling legislation findings state:
It is found and declared that the waters of Lake Tahoe
and other resources of the Lake Tahoe region are
threatened with deterioration or degeneration, which
may endanger the natural beauty and economic productivity
of the region. (U.S. Congress, 1969, p. 1).
In creating the TRPA the compact states, " . . . it is imperative that
there be established an area-wide planning agency with power to adopt
and enforce a regional plan of resource conservation and orderly
development . . ." (U.S. Congress, 1969, p. 1) The control of land
use is directly established as the means of addressing environmental
problems.
Widespread citizen concern for environmental quality is evident from
the results of a Lake Tahoe Area Council survey in 1971 of the 26,000
property owners in the Tahoe Basin (Lake Tahoe Area Council, 1971a).
A tabulation of the 8000 questionnaire responses ranks water pollution,
scenic destruction, too much commercialism and too many people as the
major environmental problems. Seventy-three percent of the respondents
indicated that present land use and government controls were not strict
enough, with over a third of the property owners stating they would
favor condemning private land for public use.These results provide very
strong evidence of the magnitude of public concern for the quality
of the Tahoe environment.
11
-------
Scientific research adds yet another dimension to the environmental
quality issue in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Extensive research has been
published on the problems of water pollution and scenic degradation
(Matthews and Schwarz, 1970). Considerable conclusive water quality
research has been conducted at Lake Tahoe over the past decade (Goldman
972; Goldman etal., 1970; 1972; 1973; U.S. Department of Interior,
1966; California Department of Water Resources, 1968-72).
In addition, research attention has recently been directed towards
the influence of the land use pattern on water quality (U.S. Forest
Service, 1972) and visual amenities (McEvoy and Williams, 1970). Some
research on specific land use impacts on water quality has been con-
ducted (Glancy, 1971; 1973) but the results are inconclusive due to the
limited time period used for observation and data collection. It is
reasonable to assume, however, that the location, intensity and rate of
land development are the causal factors leading to reduced water
quality and scenic degradation in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
In 1972 an extensive analysis of environmental quality was undertaken
oy a TRPA consultant under contract to prepare an Environmental Impact
1079?" °n the Lake Tahoe ComPrenensive Plan (Wirth and Associates,
1972).^ Both the plan and implementing ordinances were assessed to
determine their effectiveness in dealing with the potential adverse
environmental changes resulting from the full implementation of the plan.
A summary of impacts, as determined by the consultant, is shown in
Mgure IV-1. Several important observations may be made from these
H I"!-*, First is that fifteen of the seventeen major adverse impacts
identified are attributed to recreation, residential, and commercial
land uses and the related transportation infrastructure. Second,
sewage treatment, the acknowledged major environmental quality issue
during the 1960's, is indicated as producing no major adverse impacts
(although one variable impact and four minor impacts were identified)
Third, the relationship between wastewater management (sewerage) and
the impact-generating land uses is not indicated.
The consultant was unable to establish a connection between wastewater
management and the impact-generating intensive land uses dependent on
the extensive sewerage facilities in the Tahoe Basin. This relationship
between wastewater management and land use impact is vital to an
accurate and complete understanding of this impact summary
Land Use
Although this research is not directed at either land planning theory
or land development theory, a brief discussion of a simple conceptual
framework in which they fit is appropriate in order to provide a
for the sections which follow.
12
-------
f
ENVift
sub surface
soil
water
«*
J5 vegetation
Q visual
• « — . i. i - ..
recreation
> residential
J2 commercial
transport.
sewerage
water supply
sold waste
or
3
o
===
M
O
.=.
""S5"
if
=.
•=-
~*
-=-
.=.
-s-
IE
G
»^c-
.=
*^^zr*
.=1
•__
@
^=
i=.
^^1=-
o
^~~*-
— -
o
N1
NV
'5
O
o
==
o
0
o
FA
IRC
J
•s
+-I
>
.
=-
O
9
^=
==
^
LI
>NA
^
2
5
^=-
•=7
•
•
0
M
AEh
1
o
4^
^=
^=-
•^=r
O
PA
JTA
13
^=5.
— _
^
.S.
— «^
@
0
m
=^
0
o
£1
L C
s
H
O
O
o
—
•=•
==
9
o
m
O
r<
:OA
^=
•
;ui
AP(
1
!
'
£
O
o
^=.
-^«.
^=
o
o
o
=.
— -
o
Mi
3NI
O
O
_-=-
— —
^ssr
=L
_
0
0
s
O
M
ENl
O
o
.=-
•^=
J^
•=•
0
0
•
s
AF
rs
0)
=
J=5.
•=•
LY
1
O
^s.
~^=
9
—
^=
solid waste 1
o
o
REMAINING ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOLLOWING
ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN AND ORDINANCES:
% major S= variable Q minor
V-
N
i
Figure IV - 1: TRPA REGIONAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
Source: Wirth and Associates, 1972
13
-------
Land use and development factors may be expressed at specific levels
of influence, each significant in the actual process of determining or
allocating uses. Five distinct levels, moving from the abstract to
the concrete, have been identified as contributing to the evolution
of the land use pattern at Lake Tahoe. These levels and their ex-
pression and type of influence are indicated in Table IV-1.
LEVEL
I) Philosophical
2) Statutory
EXPRESSION
3) Conceptualized
Development
Societal Values toward land:
Attitudes/Values In
Individual behavior
Laws
4) Legally Committed
Development
5) Physical
Development
Plans and Policies
(Public and Private)
Institutional/Jurisdictions!
Permits and Development
Approvals
INFLUENCE
Dnqree of private/public balance In land jse plan*
nlng, decision-making and land use regulation (XM
levels 3 and 4)
Sets the statutory context for behavior of both
the public and private sector In land plannlnq and
development
Generates C*PPCtat Ions; give Indications of
planned uses thus alters behavior of both public
and private sectors; can Increase or decrees*
land values.
Actual Development
Permits owner(s) to undertake development for
specified use; essentially results in establishing
a legally available (potential) use capacity.
Physical Impacts on both institutional and
Infrastructural capacities; physical Inputs on
environmental quality; generate* demands for
related development or uses.
Table IV - 1: GENERIC INFLUENCES ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The philosophical level will not be investigated in the course of this
research, but nonetheless remains the key influence in the values
associated with the use of land. Level two, statutory, is not a topic
or this research, except as the statutory exercise or lack thereof has
directly influenced the land use pattern.
At the third level of conceptual or planned uses, future land use is
expressed through plan maps and documents. In the Lake Tahoe Basin
such planning became the basis for calculating future populations
(Brown and Caldwell, 1959), for sizing public facilities (Hill, 1969),
for determining potential local revenues (South Tahoe PUD, 1960), for
guiding and/or encouraging private development (Smith, 1960) and for
stimulating land sales and speculation (Trimont, 1970). In addition
this level is the basis for the commitment of state and federal
revenues (loans, grants) for the development of infrastructure, housing
assistance, etc. This points up the importance and significance of
land use planning in terms of its subsequent influence on the actual
use pattern and the consequent impacts on environmental quality.
The fourth level, the legal commitment to land uses, is expressed
primarily through the mechanisms of zoning and subdivision rights and
building permits (see Appendix B). Property rights are created by the
14
-------
state. Once government has made the commitment to grant land use
rights, any decision to rescind these rights becomes extremely diffi-
cult. The legal commitment of land use rights far in excess of the
actual exercise of those rights may create a condition where environ-
mental degradation becomes extremely difficult to avoid. This is
clearly the case at Lake Tahoe where 30,000 legally subdivided lots
lie vacant (Economic Research Associates, 1972a),with the consequent
impacts of their full development unknown.
Political trade-offs are constantly made during the transition from
the philosophical to the legal level, but only at level five—con-
struction, occupancy, and activities—are the full range of actual
impacts on the land use pattern felt. Since these impacts alter
social, economic, and environmental systems they require careful
monitoring and evaluation in order to provide constant feedback to
the conceptual and legal levels as the land development moves into its
physical expression.
Changes in environmental quality which may disrupt an ecosystem are
difficult to predict (Detwyler, 1971). Often these changes become
evident only after a threshold has been crossed. In the absence of
clearly defined environmental thresholds, the smaller the difference
between the physical, legal, and conceptual expressions of the use
pattern, the greater is the possibility for positive response to
emerging environmental problems. The amount of congruence between
these three levels of commitment provides a key indicator of the
ability of a regulatory body to respond to emerging environmental
quality land use problems. Figure IV-2 illustrates this problem.
Tlpe
Condition (A)
Tine
Condition (B)
Figure IV - Z: CONGRUENCE WjONG LAW USE LEVELS AS AN INDICATOR OF RESPONSIVENESS
III tHVIKUNntNTAL POLICY
15
-------
In condition A, a considerable disparity exists between the amount of
land actually being used (a,) and the amount of land legally committed
through subdivision and zoning (c,). The disparity between the com-
mitted and planned land use (pj is also considerable, and the
aggregate difference between actual and planned use (c^+p^) is of major
magnitude.
Environmental impacts can only result from actual use of land. Thus
impacts occur when the type or intensity of actual use produces a
change in environmental conditions. Once an impact and its causal
factors are identified, the question becomes one of effectively con-
trolling undesired consequences. The congruence between actual land
use and committed or planned land use is central to this question.
A policy adopted at time t (figure IV-2, condition A) to control
environmental impacts generated by the actual land use (a-,) must
necessarily address the problem of rescinding or significantly reducing
the level of committed and planned land uses (c-, and p,). As noted
earlier this is an extremely difficult process wrought with complex
legal and financial problems.
Therefore if land development as expressed through planning and legal
commitment is intended to control environmental impacts, the disparity
among levels must be minimized as indicated in Figure IV-2, Condition
B. It is the degree of congruence which determines the effectiveness
of land use control mechanisms in addressing environmental quality
issues.
16
-------
SECTION V
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN
The ecological and societal characteristics of the Tahoe Basin are
both complex and unusual. This section provides a summary of the
most important factors influencing the nature of land uses and
activities which developed in the Tahoe Basin. The discussion is
necessarily brief, intended only to outline a context for the
analytical sections which follow.
This material is organized into two distinct parts. The first de-
scribes significant characteristics important to the study area. The
second consists of a formulation of a general model which provides a
structure for the factors shaping land use in the Tahoe Basin and
identifies three distinct periods in the evolution of the land use
pattern.
Physical and Biological Characteristics
Lake Tahoe is one of the world's few primordially pure alpine lakes.
Bounded on the west by the crest of the Sierra Nevada (California) and
on the east by the Carson Range (Nevada),the 200 square mile deep-water
lake is of legendary beauty as it possesses unusual clarity and purity
and is surrounded by towering granite peaks. With its 300 square mile
watershed of Sierra Nevada landscape, it provides a natural amenity of
acknowledged national significance (U.S. Senate, 1972a), and a re-
creational amenity of high regional value.
The combination of long dry summers, frequent periods of extended
drought alternating with periods of heavy rainfall, a short growing
season and highly erodable soils, all contribute to the fragile nature
of the Tahoe Basin environment (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1971g).
Perhaps the most important ecological factor is the relationship be-
tween the quality of the water in the lake and the quality of the
water in the 64 watershed tributaries. With the notable exception of
a gentle shoreline band, the topography is generally quite steep,
making streams highly susceptible to damage from siltation due to the
crumbly granitic soils characteristic of the region (TRPA, 1971g).
The short growing season significantly limits revegetation (TRPA,
1971h). Once the vegetative cover is removed or disturbed, soil
erosion occurs and the high drainage densities of the watersheds
provide rapid sediment transport to the lake (U.S. Forest Service,
I •/ / £ J •
17
-------
The impact of this increased sediment discharge on water clarity and
quality is the subject of current research by the Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (Glancy, 1971; 1973), and Goldman's
research at the University of California, Davis, investigating
accelerated eutrophication in Lake Tahoe (Goldman 1970; Goldman et
aj.., 1970; 1973). ~~
In such a delicate self-contained ecosystem, a threshold exists beyond
which deterioration is either irreversible or arrestible only at
prohibitive cost. The risk of permanent degradation encompasses not
only the lake, but the entire landscape; that is, not only the
natural resource base, but the regional economy and the quality of
life in the region as well (Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committee, 1967).
The high scenic value of the region is also related to atmospheric
visibility; the views and vistas across the lake are of outstanding
quality. In recent years inversion layers which trap smoke and
vehicle exhaust fumes have significantly reduced visibility (TRPA,
1971). The topographic features of the basin sharply define a
contained airshed with atmospheric conditions susceptible to inversion
problems.
Much has been written about the physical and biological characteristics
of the Lake Tahoe Basin. A compilation and synthesis of publications
and data issued jointly by the TRPA and the U.S. Forest Service in
1971 covers the subjects of climate and air quality, geology and
geomorphology, hydrology and water resources, limnology and water
quality, soils, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, land resources,
recreational resources, scenic analysis, and cultural and historical
significance. In 1969 a Lake Tahoe Basin bibliography was published
by the California Resources Agency and the U.S. Forest Service,
compiling 101 pages of bibliographic references covering history,
legal controls, physical and biological characteristics, planning,
and water quality (Matthews & Schwartz, 1970).
Social and Economic Characteristics
The Lake Tahoe Basin is the major mountain resort area for northern
California. San Francisco, Sacramento and Reno are within easy
driving distance (Figure V-l)i
The social fabric is unusual due to the contrast between the permanent
population, composed predominately of lower income service and trade
personnel, and seasonal residents and short term visitors, who are
primarily higher income families from northern California urban areas.
Over a half-million families with annual incomes in excess of
$10,000 are in the region's primary market area, exerting an extra-
ordinary demand on the housing and recreation resources (Economic
Research Associates, 1971).
18
-------
•o
-------
The economy is primarily recreation-based. Second homes, apartments,
condominiums, and motel-hotel accommodations house a substantially
larger population than the 26,000 permanent residents (ERA, 1972a).
Although high vacancy rates exist in the Basin, the cost of renting or
buying housing is considerably above the reach of most service and
trade personnel. High land and construction costs are cited as the
basis for this serious housing shortage (ERA, 1972a).
Legalized gaming has been present in the Nevada portion of the region
since 1955. It is largely concentrated around the north and south
stateline areas. The rapid growth of tourism, gaming, skiing and
outdoor recreation activities has resulted in peak day populations
estimated to be as large as 248,000 persons (Smith, 1971), although
other estimates range from 98,000 (Walters, 1973) to 155,000
(Eckbo et al_., 1973b) (see Table VI-8).
Very little research has been conducted on the social and economic
characteristics of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Most of the published mate-
rial inttese subject areas is confined to consultant reports to
special districts, land developers, or local government. These
documents are generally not research findings per se and therefore
provide a very uneven description of social and economic activity.
The only attempts at systematic compilation and analysis occur in the
"1980 Regional Plan Technical Supplement" (Wilsey and Ham, 1967) and
in the two studies prepared by Economic Research Associates for the
TRPA (ERA, 1971; 1972a).
Institutional and Regulatory Characteristics
Sixty-two percent of the region's landscape is in public ownership.
The U.S. Forest Service administers 57% (see Figure V-2) while the
remaining 5% is managed by the respective State Park systems. These
public holdings provide a major recreation opportunity for northern
California and Nevada residents. In addition they provide a signifi-
cant external economy to the resident population, because the out-
standing natural amenities contained within the Basin are a major
asset to the recreation-based economy (Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committea
1967).
The Tahoe Basin contained over one hundred special-purpose authorities,
one incorporated city,portions of six counties and two states, and Is
served by numerous Federal and State agencies. Prior to formation of
TRPA in 1970, land use planning and decision-making took place at the
respective county seats, all located a considerable distance from
the Tahoe Basin (Figure V-3). The City of South Lake Tahoe, incorpo-
rated in 1965, has been the sole exception. The myriad of land use
regulation problems in the Lake Tahoe Basin has been well researched
and documented (Brandt, 1971; Bronson, 1971; Constantini, 1972; Davis,
1970; Felts and Wandesforde-Smith, 1973; Hopp and Linn, 1970; Lake
Tahoe Joint Study Committee, 1967; U.S. Senate, 1972a).
20
-------
WASHOCOO.
DOWLAS CO.
s
v
s
•,
s
LAKE TAHOE BASIN
Figure V • 2: PUBLIC LAND OWNERSHIP - - LAKh
BASIN
Source: EPA Lake Tahoe Study
21
-------
OREGON
NEVADA
Oufllrwef
Ulu Tito* Butt
County Sm
5_JO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 $0 100
Figure V - 3: POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY -- LIKE TAHOE BASIN
Source: EPA Lake Tahoe Study
22
-------
State and federal involvement in the development and administration of
wastewater management has been substantial. However, wastewater
systems are directly provided by eleven special districts (Figure V-4).
Four export facilities are in operation pumping virtually all waste-
water out of the Tahoe Basin (Figure V-5). Almost all of the districts
were established and consolidated during the research period (see
Table VI-15).
Publications on water pollution and wastewater management problems are
numerous. More than seventy bibliographic entries in this research
deal directly with wastewater management problems specific to Lake
Tahoe. This proliferation underscores the magnitude of both the prob-
lem and the concern. Unfortunately, no comprehensive picture of
wastewater management can be drawn in the aggregate (see Section VII-
Policy Analysis and Evaluation).
Growth and Development Context
The purpose of this brief discussion is twofold: first, to identify
major elements shaping land use in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including
the relationships among these elements; and second, to identify the
sequence of significant changes in the elements and their interrelation-
ships. A conceptual model is established of the land use system in
the Lake Tahoe Basin to provide an historical- context for the analysis
and evaluation which follow. (A detailed chronology of important
events in the evolution of the land use pattern and wastewater manage-
ment is presented in Appendix A.)
This discussion draws on the characteristics previously described in
this section as well as monographs in the area of land use planning,
modeling and systems analysis (Chapin, 1965; Friedmann and Alonso,
1964; Hamilton, 1969; Milgram, 1967; Steinitz and Rogers, 1968).
Conceptual Model
The technique of modeling once resided solely in the domain of the
physical sciences. With the help of systems analysis, modeling has
recently been brought to a level of applicability which makes it
useful to social scientists as well. Its main function is to explain
interrelated phenomena. The main advantage of modeling over other
forms of analysis is that it can explicitly express relationships
within a total system.
It is important to note that the model developed in this section is a
structural formulation of the factors shaping land use in the Tahoe
Basin, not a quantified mathematical expression of absolute changes in
land use measures. These changes cannot be projected because research
findings indicate that data on land use activities is of poor quality,
has many gaps and covers a period of major and irregular change which
is also too short to allow a sufficient number of observations.
23
-------
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
LEGEND
1. South Taho* P.U.O.
2. Klngsbury G.I.D.
3. Douglas County S.I.D. #1
4. Elk Point S.I.D.
5. Round Hill Q.I.D.
6. Tahoa — Douglaa CUD.
7. Incline Vlllag* G.I.D.
8. Washoe County S.I.D. 411
9. North Taho* P.U.O.
10. Taho« City P.U.O.
11. Crystal Bay Q.I.D.
\
\
i
/
/
Figure V - 4: SEWERAGE DISTRICTS -- LAKE TAHOE BASIN
Source: EPA Lake Tahoe Study
-------
WASHOE CO
PLACER CO
EL DORADO CO
LEGEND
A
TREATMENT PLANT
MTERCEPTOfl
MTERCEPTOfl UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED TTSA INTERCEPTOR &
TREATMENT PLANT
EXPORT LINE
CINDER CONE
TO CARSON RIVER
TO CARSON RIVER
TO INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR
Figure V 5: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND EXPORT IMES
LAKE TAHOE BASIN
Source: EPA Lake Tahoe Study
25
-------
A model of land development at Lake Tahoe must include those elements
which are present throughout the study period. Six elements were
determined to be of major consequence (Figure V-6): demand for Tahoe
Basin resources; resident and visitor activities; land use control
mechanisms; provision of infrastructure (especially wastewater manage-
ment systems); physical land development and use and changes in
environmental quality.
(3)
PUBLIC PLANNING
AND LAND USE
CONTROL S«T£H
«
$
fl9«r« V - t: CWICCPTUAl. MOOU Of TW LAM) DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: LAKE TAIBE BASIN 1950-1972
Dished lines Indkttc newtlve feedback
Element One -- Demand for Tahoe Basin Resources: A chief source of
demand, and perhaps the best indicator of activity, is the growing
population of high income California residents who can easily visit
the Tahoe Basin. A 1971 economic study indicates that the primary
Tahoe market is located in California and is comprised of over one-half
million families with annual incomes in excess of $10,000 (ERA, 1971).
Counts of annual visitor days provide the best indicator of actual
demand.
26
-------
Element Two -- Resident and Visitor Activities: This demand can be
summarized in three activities: outdoor recreation including skiing,
hiking, camping, fishing, swimming, beaching, picnicking; residential
development for both seasonal and permanent residents; and gaming and
other commercial facilities for tourists. It is important to note
that gaming activity is regulated by the State of Nevada and is not
subject to local or regional authority.
Each of these activities produces an impact on the region which can be
expressed in economic, political, environmental and land use terms.
Both public and private sectors contend for land use decisions favor-
able to their respective interests or activities. The private sector
elements most active in this respect are developers and those with
gaming interests who have title to land upon which their economic
interests are to be advanced or contrained. By contrast outdoor
recreation activities generally utilize public lands.
However a public/private conflict is intrinsic to these Basin activities
when viewed in terms of environmental quality and compatible land uses.
The environmental quality of the extensive public land holdings is
acknowledged to be significantly degraded by the intensive private
sector commercial activity occurring on private lands. The ultimate
outcome of this conflict takes on transcendent importance when viewed
in the context of Tahoe's extraordinary environmental amenities.
Element Three — Land Use Control Mechanisms: Residential and commer-
cial land use activities are regulated through a variety of publicly
controlled mechanisms involving state, regional, and local government
authorities (see Appendix B). Planning and regulation of public lands
resides at the federal and state levels through the U.S. Forest
Service and the respective state park systems.
Element Four -- Provision of Infrastructure: Infrastructure, which
includes systems for water supply, energy, transportation, communica-
tion, solid waste disposal, and wastewater management, is provided by
a sizeable number of semi-autonomous public, quasi-public and private
bodies. This research is primarily concerned with wastewater manage-
ment. Other infrastructure systems are discussed when they directly
influence the relationships between wastewater management and land use.
Element Five — Physical Land Development and Use: The visible ex-
pression of resource demand, land use regulation and provision of
infrastructure is embodied in the resultant pattern of physical land
development and use. Thus this element is the output of interactions
among the previous four elements.
Element Six — Change in Environmental Quality: This element is an
expression of the changes in environmental quality resulting from
the physical development and use of land. The element is the source of
27
-------
feedback which influences the level of demand and the degree of land
use control.
Interrelationships Among Elements: Solid lines indicate the primary
positive relationships between elements, defining a set of self-
reinforcing or growth-sustaining relationships. The broken lines
indicate negative feedback (self-correcting) relationships originating
from adverse changes in environmental quality. This feedback loop is
central to the evolution of land use controls in the Tahoe Basin.
Development Periods
The changes in these elements and relationships have been irregular
in terms of both rate and degree. Elements may change gradually at a
constant rate or increase by several degrees of magnitude. Relation-
ships may remain constant or shift dramatically with changes in public
attitudes or with new legislation. Therefore any determination of
discrete historic periods is necessarily limiting. However the major
changes in the Lake Tahoe land development process suggest the exis-
tence of three distinct periods, although precise dates of transition
are somewhat arbitrary. These three periods and their important
characteristics are shown in Table V-l. Section VIII of this report
is a formulation of specific models for these three periods, based on
the research findings presented in the quantitative and policy analysis
sections which follow.
t
PERIOD
ONE
TWO
THREE
DATES
up to
1959
1960-
1969
1970
to
pre-
sent
MAJOR
LAND USE
ACTIVITIES
second hones
sunnier out-
door recre-
ation
second homes
simmer out-
door recre-
ation
skiing
gaming
seasonal
recreation
conmerclal
tourism
year-round
recreation
LAND USE
PLANNING AND
REGULATION
local govt
local govt
with trans-
ition leading
to regional
govt
regional
govt
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
primarily septic
tanks with limited
local sewage treat-
ment facilities
major expansion of
sewage treatment
facilities
decision to export
effluent
major transition
from septic tank
use to sewage
treatment
completion and
operation of major
sewage treatment
and export
facilities
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
ISSUES
water pollution
from septic tanks
sower system
overflows
air pollution
loss of water
clarity due to
sedimentation
loss of scenic
amenities
revegetatlon
crowding
traffic con-
gestion
air pollution
loss of water
clarity due to
sedimentation
loss of icenlc
amenities
re vegetation
MAJOR .
LEGISLATION
Interstate
Hater Compact
Commission
Bl-State
Compact
TRPA
NEPA
EPA
TableV- 1: OWIHAnT CHARACTERISTICS OF TUf LAW DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: LAKE TAHOE REGION,
MAJOR PERIODS 1950-1972
Source: staff research
28
-------
SECTION VI
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
This section describes the changes in the relationships between land
use and wastewater management activities which occurred in the Lake
Tahoe Basin from 1950 through 1972. The section is organized into two
parts: a discussion of quantitative changes in discrete land use and
wastewater management data and a statistical analysis of specific
structural and causal relationships.
Summary of Findings
The following measures provide the best indicators of the magnitude of
land use changes occurring during the period 1950-1972 in the Tahoe
Basin.
—Permanent population has increased ten-fold from 2500 to over 25,000
persons.
—Peak day population has increased to an estimated 155,000 persons, an
increase of over 400 percent.
—Subdivision lot approvals have outpaced housing construction appro-
vals (building permits) by a ratio of 3:1, and the proportion of multiple
housing units has increased dramatically since 1960.
Similar changes in sewerage facilities for the same time period are
reflected in the following measures:
--All major plant capacity increases have occurred in the past five
years; 72 percent of the existing Basin-wide treatment capacity has
been provided since 1968.
—The percentage of total capacity utilized has only increased at an
average rate of slightly over 2 percent over the past five years;
the peak month average daily flow is currently less than 50 percent of
the total capacity.
29
-------
The most important findings derived from statistical analysis of land use
and wastewater interrelationships may be summarized as follows. Substan-
tial differences are apparent between the North and South lake shores.
—Treatment plant expansions at the California North Shore were accompan-
ied by a corresponding increase in multiple family and motel/hotel con-
struction approvals; on the South Shore intensive recreation uses (skiing
and gaming) accompanied plant expansion.
—Subdivision approvals at the California North Shore do not indicate a
strong relationship with expansion of sewerage facilities; however, on
the South Shore subdivision activity in the two-year period preceding
facility expansion shows this strong relationship to the planned capacity
increase. This suggests that land subdivision at the South Shore may have
been stimulated by the anticipated provision of wastewater infrastructure.
--The number of acres per subdivision decreased significantly and the num-
ber of lots per acre doubled following major capacity increases for all
facilities, with the exception of Incline Village. These dramatic in-
creases in land use density show a strong correlation to the expansion
of sewage infrastructure.
30
-------
Quantitative Changes in Land Use and Wastewater Management
Quantification and measurement of changes in both the land use pattern
and wastewater management activity are central to this section of the
research. Table VI-1 utilizes the conceptual framework of land
development influences postulated in Section IV (see Table IV-1) to
organize the specific types of data required for quantitative analysis.
The availability and quality of these data are key determinants in the
scope and depth of analysis. (Note: levels one and two are not quan-
tifiable and are therefore not included in this discussion.)
LEVEL
LAND USE MEASURES
HASTEHATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES
1) Philosophical
(Values)
Social and Economic Values
(ownership)
Amenity Values
Public Health; Environmental quality
2) Statutory
3) Conceptualized
Development
4) Legally Committed
Development
5) Pnysleal
Development
Land Use Law/Policy
Planning Law/Policy
General Plan Use Districts
Private Sector Development Proposals
Zoning
Subdivision Approvals
Building Permits
Assesses Value
Buildings/Structures
Population
Land Use Activities
Wastewater Management and Hater
Pollution Legislation and Policy
Feasibility Studies; Facility
plans; Planned Service Area Expansions
Facility Capacities
Service Area
Facility operation
Mater quality
Table VI . 1: MEASURES Of LAND DEVELOPMENT: LAND USE AND HASTEHATER MANAGEMENT
Measures of Land Use Development
Level 3 - Conceptualized and Planned Development
Public Sector Planning: Prior to the adoption of the TRPA Plan in
1972, county and city general plans were the official public documents
indicating planned land uses. In 1969 these general plans were
adopted in the aggregate by the TRPA as an official interim regional
plan. These two points in time, 1969 and 1972, provide the only
basinwide measures of planned land use. Unfortunately the individual
counties and the City of South Lake Tahoe did not systematically
review, update and record changes in their General Plans, thus no
quantitative record of public planning is available for the entire
study period.
31
-------
IIVIO USE
CATEGORIES
PU1SL ESTATE
RESID ESTATE OVER 1
LOW RES1D. 1-3 DW/AC
HED RES ID. 4-8 DW/AC
l!f IKSID 8-IS OW/AC
TIORI5T COWtRCIAL
LirtlTEO OR LOCAL C0ffl
HENERAL COftERCIAL
SERVICE INDUSTRY
coimv TOTALS
PERCENT REDUCTION
PLACER COUNTY
INTERIM TRPA CHMG£
PLA'I PLA'I
"•°9° 1-2,0 -,2.650
1,770J
ft. 190 1.950 -1.230
2M 370 4t40
490 330 -160
100 70 -30
J40T
[- 400 -490
550 J
40 230 4190
22,800 8.5W -14,230
f.J.«
EL DORADO COUNTY
InTEuIN 1RPA CCAW
PLAN PLAN
'°> 0 -20
0-'
11.750 7,680 -4,070
390 810 4420
630 1,120 -(491)
980 880 . -100
110-1
\- 940 *410
420 J
430 530 4)00
14.730 11,960 -2.770
18,81
DOUGLAS COUNTY
INTERIM TRI>A CHANGE
PLAN PLAN
"T-60 -1,240
1,300-1
1 ,830 1 ,130 -500
850 240 -MO
GOO 614 4110
520 270 -251
«0-t
U 139 >70
140-1
110 70 -40
SJ10 2,710 -ZfOn
44. Ot
HASIKK COUNTY
INTERIM TRPA .CHANGE
PLA1* PLAN
1- 300 -840
1,,40-J
2.650 2,190 -460
160 250 4-90
3M> 210 -ISO
230 120 -110
HO-1
[-260 -80
ISflJ
0 80 4BO
4,fBO 1,410 1.470
30.1X
TAHOE 8 AS IN
MTCRIM t«PA CIIA1W
PLW PLW
ll.llO-i
^570 -14,750
4.210-4
24.420 18.160 -f .260
1.630 1,670 -40
l.'HO 2^70 »?oo
1.830 1,340 -490
670-1
M.730 -230
1.2
-------
legal approval or commitment to land use and development by a
public authority.
Zoning: The history of zoning in the Tahoe Basin is similar to that
of public planning—there are very limited records with no systematic
set of accounts to document changes. It is reasonable to conclude
that zoning practices reflected the prevailing planning practices,
exercising only minimal regulation and control of private development.
Preliminary staff research indicates that documented zoning changes
have increased land use densities with only limited downzoning in
Douglas and Placer Counties occurring since 1969.
Subdivision: The most consistent data expressing legally committed
development is the number of lots approved through the land subdivision
process. The total number of subdivided lots has increased from
17,754 in 1950 to 49,334 in-1970, an increase of 181% in twenty
years (Table VI-3).
YEAR
pre-1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1954
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1951-71
TOTAL
EL DORADO
NA
292
455
5-12
520
511
511
1565
565
1858
1944
265
368
472
598
1435
402
1526
1438
1152
510
1961
• , •
18890
PLACER
NA
0
10
39
42
229
33
84
44
482
547
168
140
576
221
611
383
112
64
224
563
826
5398
WASHOE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
84
443
273
569
41
725
0
0
1540
2686
1719
816
8896
DOUGLAS
NA '
0
15'
30
0
268
33
368
114
158
178
' . 211
51
48
45
206
128
0
420
- 72
73
720
3138
TOTAL/YR
17554
292
480
611
562
1008
577
2017
723
2493
2753
1087
832
1665
905
9.977
913
163?
3462
4134
2855
4323
36322
53876
AVERAGE/Y3
NA
97
160
204
187
336
192
672
241
833
688
272
208
416
226 *
744 j
228 i
410 j
866
1034 ;
671 :
1081 j
!
i
Table VI - 3: NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION LOTS APPROVED FOR LAKE TAHOE
BASIN BY COUNTY 1950- 1971
Source: Tphoe Regional Planning Aoency 1"=400' Base Maps Oct. 1971 -
Data comoilerl by author for UC Santa Cruz Tahoe Data Rank for 1950-1967:
Reqional Housinn Element Update - TRPA/Fconcmics Research
Associates 1972 for 1068-1971
33
-------
The percentage increase in subdivided lots varies considerably among
the four counties as does the yearly variation within each county.
It is interesting to note that subdivision approvals have consistently
been three times greater than the number of single family housing units
constructed.
Building permits: Nearly 20,000 building permits were issued for
housing units in the decade of the sixties in the Tahoe Basin (Table
VI-4).
COUNTY
El Dorado 1
Placer
Washoe
Douglas
TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS
SINGLE
FAMILY
4269
1908 3
2349
522
9048
MULTIPLES
2037
1028
1409
570
5044
HOTELS/
MOTELS
1815
2016 2
921
844
5596
TOTAL
8121
4952
4679
1936
19688
Table VI - 4: R'JILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR HOUSING UNITS — LAKE TAHOE
BASIN. 1960-1970.
Source: Raymond H.F. Smith, Housing Study of the Lake Tahoe Basin
1. From 19PO to 1963 some multiple and hotel/motel permits
did not record units; totals reflect author's estimates
for these years.
2. Placer County, Population and Housing Study. 1970,
Appendix C. Figure 1s total nunber of units built,
not permits Issued.
3. Includes 1970 permits hand-counted September, 1973.
Multiple units, hotels and motels, accounted for more than half of the
building permits issued in the 1960's. In a period of only four years
1967-1970, a total of 2,100 permits were issued for condominiums
(Table VI-5). These projects required sewers since clustered high
density uses could not be accommodated on septic tanks.
HEAR
1967
1968
1960
1970
TOTAL ,
LAKE TAIIOE BASIN
EL DORADO
' 29
11
76
109
!25
PIACCR
35
M
302
507
908 ,
DOUGLAS
18
«
4
70
117
UASHOC
57
W2
161
450
850
TOTAL
139
262
563
1136
Z100
Table VI - 5: BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR CONDOMINIUM UNITS —
LAKE T.'K"£ B'SIII 19C7-70
Source: County Building apartments «nd Economic Rejtirch Associates;
reported In Regional Homing Element Update. 197Z.
34
-------
This increase in building activity associated with condominiums and
other high density units mirrors national and California trends, and
may not be attributed solely to the availability of sewage capacity
needed to serve such developments. Nationwide the construction of
multiple units has increased from 22% of all housing starts in 1960
to 43% in 1970 (Table VI-6), an average of 35% for the ten year
period. During the same period multiple unit permits issued in the
Tahoe Basin also accounted for 35% of total permits issued.
YEAR
1960
19«1
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
SINGLE FAMILY
1068
988
996
1022
970
964
779
844
900
811
813
MULTIPLE
287
376
496
fi!9
559
509
387
448
608
£56
621
TOTAL
1295
1364
1492
1641
1529
1473
1165
1292
1508
1467
1434
MULTIPLE/TOTAL
22X
28X
33X
38X
37X
35X
33X
35X
40X
45X
43X
Table VI - 6: U.S. HOUSING STARTS 1960-1970 (Thousands of Units)
Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1970
Assessed Valuation: Assessed value is a defacto indicator of the
interaction between legal commitment and actual physical development.
It is categorized here as a legal commitment since the basis of pro-
perty taxes includes prevailing market conditions which are influenced
in part by zoning and land subdivision as well as the improvements
and income generated on the individual parcels.
Table VI-7 shows the assessed value of Tahoe Basin lands, including
rates of increase within the four counties containing urban development,
35
-------
Increases between 1960 and 1970 show rapid growth rates indicating an
urbanization process, especially in the Nevada Counties.
YEAR
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
EL DORADO COUNTY
DOLLARS %Afrom
1%0
HA
14393000 2
39374000
73425000 8631
97450000 147X
PLACER COUNTY1
DOLLARS X^from
J960
8701000
13827000
23383000
41162000 76?
83R18000 258%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
DOLLARS %Afrom
1960
MA
6573000
21440000 226X
48694000 6411
WASHOE COUNTY
DOLLARS %.1from
I960-
3513000
17331000 393%
59522000 15942
Table VI - 7: ASSESSED VALUATION-LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1950-1970
(Percentages are based on growth since 1960)
Sources: Environmental Information Report, Tahoe Palace, {Smith, 1973)
1. Greater North Tahoe Chamber of Cormerce
2. Estimate of El Dorado County Assessor
Level 5 - Physical Development
Population: The permanent population of the Tahoe Basin has increased
tenfold in the past 22 years, from 2,500 residents in 1950 to an esti-
mate! 28,500 in 1972. Ttte peak summer"weekend population has climbed
from an estimated 31,000 in 1950 to an estimate of 155,000 in 1970
(although estimates range from 98,000 (Walters Eng. 1973) to 247,000
(Smith 1971).) Table VI- 8 compares permanent, seasonal and peak
day populations for 1950, 1960 and 1970.
Year
1950
I960
1970
Permanent
2.5001
12.461
25.892
XA*
__
398%
9351
Seasonal
24.0002
38.700
67,255
S&
_.
61%
1802
Peak
31 .6001
93.7003
I55.0Q04
JA
__
197%
391 *
Table VI -8 : POPULATION ESTIMATES—LAKE TAHOE BASIN. 1950-1970
t% chanqe calculated from 1950)
Source: Economic Research Associates and U.S. Census 1960. 1970
South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, "Miscellaneous Data," 1972
California Division of Water Resources, Report on Use of Water, June 1949
(Figure 1s maximum peak date. California side only, 1948)
Real Estate Research Corp., Economic Base Study, 1961
Eckbo, Deans, Austin and Williams, "Tahoe Population Estimates and Projections"
(for TRPA). 1973
36
-------
Housing: Housing and recreation activity reflect this rapid increase
in population. The basin housing stock has more than doubled since
1960 (Table VI - 9). Washoe County, which is dominated by the major
Incline Village development, has shown a spectacular increase Each
of the other counties has shown a substantial gain.
COUNTY
EL DORADO
PLACER
DOUGLAS' '
WASHOE
TOTAL
1960
5939
2907
1045
148
10039
• .1—
1970
11305
5915
2018
1814
21052
-^ — — _
t Change
90S
104X
931
11261
1101
Table VI - 9: TOTAL HOUSING UNITS. LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1960 and 1970
Source: Re£lonaJ_ Hourly EJemervt Update, 1972.
SR5S.2
A summary of existing housing units, including motels, hotels and
trailers is presented in Table VI - 10. Single family dwellings, in-
cluding mobile homes, are now less than half of the total number of
units. This fact, coupled with the increased percentages of multiple
units built over the last decade provides evidence of a move toward
greater densities in the residential land use pattern. This trend is
indicative of a rapidly urbanizing area and marks a significant depar-
ture i from the second home mountain resort Tahoe community of the
1950's. The South Shore counties contain twice the number of housing
units as the North Shore counties.
EL DORADO
[SOUTH LAKE TAHOE]1
DOUGLAS
PLACER
HASHOE
TOTAL
«»!>.
11
8558
5270]
1167
4071
1024
4820
_J
0,
t-
i
3476
[2984]
618
wn
1123
6138
20958
| ,
^
UJUJ
ii
6358
1291
2769
fl25
11243
s
_J
I
498
[265]
233
252
70
1053
1
185=0
[8519]
3174
8013
3042
1
.
South
Shore
22199
North
Shore •
11055
33254 j
TABLE VI - in: DWELLING UNITS (LAKE TAME BASIN FIELD CHECK APRIL
Source: (Smith 1971)
1. U.S. Housing Census, 1970.
1971)
37
-------
Recreation Activity: Gaming revenues, skier days, and traffic volume
are the best measures of recreation and tourism activity in the Tahoe
Basin as only limited data exist on summer outdoor recreation activities,
Legalized gaming was established in the Tahoe Basin in 1955. The
yearly increase in gaming has had a profound impact on the local eco-
nomy. Table VI - 11 shows total yearly gaming revenues in Douglas and
Washoe Counties. The Washoe County figures hide the extremely rapid
growth within the Tahoe Basin due to the magnitude of the gaming in-
dustry in Reno-Sparks. In contrast, nearly all the gaming activity
in Douglas County occurs within the Basin.
YEAR
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962 -
1963
1964
1965
1966'
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
DOUGLAS COUNTY
Revenues
(dollars)
5,000,000
8,000,000
12,000,000
17,000,000
23,000,000
27,000,000
32,000,000
37,000,000
41,000,000
43,000,000
52,000,000
57,000,000
57,000,000
61,000,000
67,000,000
73,000,000
83,000,000
^Change
from 1956
50-
140
240
360.
440
540
640'
720
760
940
1040.
1040'
1120
1240-
1360
1560
WASHOE COUNTY
Revenues
(dollars)
31,000,000
38,000,000
40,000,000
46,000,000
54,000,000
57,000,000
60,000,000
62,000,000
71,000,000
76,000,000
84,000,000
88,000,000
89,000,000
95,000,000
107,000,000
120,000,000
134,000,000
/^Change
from 1956
23
29
47
74
81
94
100
129
145
171
184
190
206
245
287
300
Table VI - 11:
GAMING REVENUES — NEVADA COUNTIES WITH
AREAS IN LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1956-72. (Revenu
from Reno and Sparks included in Washoe Com
figures)
Source; Nevada Gaming Commission
38
-------
The decade of the 1960's was marked with a dramatic increase in the
growth of skiing in the Lake Tahoe region. The north shore area
experienced a five-fold increase in the number of skier days between
1960 and 1970, with a three-fold increase at south shore ski areas
(Table VI - 12).
YEAR
1960v
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969,
1970
1971
1972
NORTH
SKIER DAYS
i4o;ooo
170,000
200,000
230,000
260,000
300,000
336,000
605,000
641,000
702,000
701,000
740,000
785,000
SHORE
X chanqe
from 1960
21%
43*
64%
86%
114%
140%
332%
358%
401%
401%
429%
461%
SOUTH SHORE
SKIER DAYS
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
175,000
230,000
230,000
340,000
302,000
333,000
364,000
% change
from 1960
•?%
18%
27%
36%
45%
59%
109%
109%
209%
175%
203%
231%
Table VI -.12: SKIER DAYS LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1960-72
Source: U.S. Forest Service. North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Conmerce and
Economic Research Associates.
Annual traffic census figures from the California and Nevada highway
departments provide an excellent measure of the increase in demand for
the Tahoe Basin Recreation amenities. Three major highways provide
access to the basin: Highway 50 and Highway 89 in California and
Highway 50 in Nevada. The increases in traffic volume on these high-
ways are shown in Table VI - 13. Highway 50 shows a steady increase
in both California and Nevada and clearly handles the major portion
of vehicular traffic. The traffic on Highway 89 during the years pre-
ceding and immediately following the 1960 Olympic Games (1957-1961)
dropped off sharply in 1962 and 1963 and has failed to reach previous
39
-------
levels in spite of the conversion of old U.S. route 40 to freeway
standards (now Interstate 80). (See Figure V - 1 for location of
highway access to the Lake Tahoe Basin.)
YEAR
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1951
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
HIGHWAY-50 EL DORADO CO.
~ j cnanq
VEHICLE? from 1950
2543
3053 20X
3154 24 %
3745 47X
4311 70X
4551 79X
5556 118X
6417 152*
7388 191X
7033 21 2X
9491 273X
8650 240X
5950 134X
9550 276*
8450 232X
10350 307X
10600. 31 7X
10300 ' 305X
10000 293X
10500 31 3j[
10250 303X
11050 335X
12150 378X
HIGHWAY 89-PLACER CO.
VEHICLES frlVfr
2332
1800 -23X
2508 fit
2056 -12X
3444 481
3430 471
3841 65*
4414 89t
4408 91X
4480 92X
4455 91X
4000 72X
2900 24X
1800 -23X
1900 -19X
2150 -8X
2250 -4X
2375 2X
2400 3X
2750 18X
3100 '33X
3350 44X
3750 61X
HIGHWAY 50-CARSON CO.
VEHICLES fii'ftfiP
465
512 10X
592 27X
751 62X
787 69X
913 96X
978 11 OX
1109 138X
1388 198X
1595 243X
1620 248X
1664 258X
1723 271X
1874 303X
2013 333X
2183 369X
2435 . 424X
2244 383X
2317 398X
2307 396X
2583 455X
2726 496X
2983 542X
Table VI - 13: MOTOR VEHICLES ENTERING TAHOE BASIN (AVERAGE DAILY COUNT t 2) 1950-1972
Source: Annual Traffic Census, Calif. Division of Highways and Nevada Department
of Highways
1. Authors Interpolation
Measures of Wastewater Management Activity
Level 3 — Conceptualized Development
Sewerage facility feasibility studies are the main source of data for
this level. Most studies were conducted by consulting engineering
firms since the special districts had no in-house engineers. These
studies generally included three elements: determination of system
sizing, location of treatment plants and lines and financing of
facilities.
Both new and expanded treatment plants have been oversized since 1968
especially those in Douglas County and Incline Village—see Table VI -
14. This was apparently due to the magnitude of the population pro-
jections used by consulting engineers to determine potential plant
40
-------
YEAR
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
11971
J1972
ISA
i
STPUD
I't-KLh"!
CAPACITY
FLOW CAPACITY UTILIZED
1,300.000 Z, 500,000 52
1 ,800,000 2,500,000 72
2,000,000 2.500,000 80
2,600,000 ?, 500,000 104
2,500.000 2,500,000 100
2,900,000 2,500,000 116
2,600,000 7.500,000 35
2,600,000 7.500,000 35
3,000,000 7,500,000 40
3,330,000 7,500.000 44
3,500,000 7,500,000 47
169% 200X
DCSID fl
PERCENT
CAPACITY
FLOH CAPACITY UTILIZED
[300,000) 300.000 100
[350,000) 300,000 117
[445, 000) 300,000 148
(52l.oon) ano.non 173
568,000) 300,000 190
[587,00") 3V>,(VX> 196
582.000 3.000,000 19
sy.noo 3.000.000 20
600,000 3,noO,000 20
620,ono 3,ono.nf)o 21
650,000 3,000,000 22
117% 900%
Tufiin
PERCENT
CAPACITY
FLOW CAPACITY UTILIZED
HA 700.000
NA 700,000
N* 700,000
NA 700,000
HA 700,000
250,000 700,000 36
439,000 700,000 63
325.000 700,000 «6
433.000 700,000 62
588.000 3,000,000 20 j
NA 3,000.000
135! 329%
Trpnp 2
PERCENT
CAPACITY
FLOy CAPACITY UTILIZED
NA }50,000
NA 250,000
NA 250,000
1 70 000 250 000 68
183 000 250 000 73
361 000 250.000 144
37,000 250.000 95
25.000 ' Torino 46
396,000 1.444.000 27
603,000 1.444,000 42
323,000 1.444.000 57
384% 4781
NTFUD Z
PERCENT "
CAPACITY
FLOW CAPACITY UTILIZED
NA 800,000
NA 800,000
NA BOO, 000
958,000 800,000 120
565,000 800,000 71
987,000 800,010 123
555,000 800,000 69
1.203,000 800.000 150
667,000 1.656.000 40
1.560,000 1,656.000 94
1.091,000 1,656,000 66
141 107S
Table VI - 14: AVERAGE DAILY PEAK MONTH SEWAGE FLOWS AND PLANT CAPACITIES (GAL./QAY) 1950-1972
Source: Sewerage District Offices
Underlined figures depict situations where dally capacity vas less than average dally flows during the peak month.
* is based on first year In each district for which figures were available
1. This capacity figure Is actually allotment 1n STPUD plant until 1f»fi8. Flows 1962-67 for DCSID II are recorded
also In STPUO. 1962-57. -
2. Joint treatment plant for TCPUD S "TPUD began operating 1n 1970. Capacities figures have been allotted.
by agreement between these districts.
-------
flows. Ultimate peak summer population projections which have been
used for facility sizing range from 200,000 to 680,000 (see Figure A
of Appendix C, Population Projections). These projections were based
on very limited data covering very few years. For example, a 1959
report partly based facility sizes on a "greatly accelerated rate of
growth (which) began in 1955 . , . the presently apparent trend is
likely to continue for a good many years." (Brown and Caldwell, 1959,
p. 33)
In addition to the creation of instant trends, engineering firms
tended to borrow their projections from other studies rather than
develop their own (see Appendix C for several examples). The paucity
of time-series data is partly responsible for compounded errors.
Independent research, however, could have limited the perpetuation
of misinformation and inaccurate projections.
«
Conceptualized development of properly sized facilities has also been
hindered by the tremendous disparity between peak loads and average
loads on treatment systems. This condition is primarily a function
of tourism in the Tahoe Basin.
Another measure of conceptualized development is the planned expansion
of sewerage district service areas. Table VI - 15 shows present ser-
vice district areas and major annexations. These service areas are
compared with the maximum permitted urban uses indicated in county
general land use plans (TRPA Interim Plan) and also with the current
TRPA Plan.
01STAICT
Tihoe City PUD
North Tihoe PUS
Incline Village
GIO
Washoe SID fl
Crystal Day
GI3
South Tthoe PUD
Douglas Co.
SID 11
Kln^sbury
RciinJ Hill
. Tahoe Doug Us
T Elk Point
FCRHAflON
DATE
1938
194}
l»6l
196S
1972
19SO
1953
1964
1964
1969
1969
SIKVICE
DISTRICT
ARIA
(ACRES)
17,730
4,300
8.910
60
160
21, 200
300
4,000
750
3,400
100
ItA.l.iit
All!. MM IONS
(Ar.itrs)
1010
4:ir.n
3170
6500
2080
19Gfi
1%7
1968
1970
1971
2270 (1966)
4450
1640
1480
8390
1958
1965
1967
1972
•
mini ML
tRLATIllNT
PLANT
CAPACITY
(GALLONS/DAY)
250,000 (1953)
800.000 (1954)
700.000 (1962)
200.000 (1952)
2,500,000 (I960)
300.000
(allotment In
STPUD Plant)
EXI'IINB
TRLAHLNT
PLANT
CAPACITY
(GALLONS/DAY)
3,100,000 (1970)
3,000.000 (1171)
7,500.000 (1968)
3.000.000 (1968)
t
1
!
Mximm RtsinrNMAi AM
cmriERCHL nrvnnpHinT
(•.CUES)
INTERIM
PLAN '
10.620
3,120
4,2(0
' 60
140
ll.SSO
930
1,113
> 540
1.910
SO
TaPA
PLAN t
5,300
2,550
. 3,010
50
0
10,540
S«0
510
420
i.nm
70
'WtfBf
-5.J20
•570
T.Jio
-10
-140
-1,110
-350
-1,120
•-120
-880
»20
PmCCKT
C«ANGf_
-50. 1J
-is.n
•zo.UJ
•16.71
-100.01
- 9.SJ
-37. it
f
1 -M.«
•zz.n
•4t.U
"01
Ttblc VI • 15: SUWARY OF SEWERAGE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
Source: Scwtrage District Offices
I. TRPA INTERIM PLAN: Does not Include recreation or open ipac« land use ctttoorUt
2. TRPA PLAN: Docs not Include development reserve or recreation land use categories
-------
Level 4 — Legally Committed Development .
Data at this level include the rated capacities of treatment plants and
the costs of constructing and expanding such facilities. The pattern
of added sewage capacities in the Basin between 1950 and 1970 is very
clear (Figure VI - 1). Small plants were built at both the north and
south shores in the early 1950's. The South Lake Tahoe plant, where
the population concentration was greatest, increased capacity eleven-
fold in 1960. By the late 1960's all plants were operating near
capacity and three new plants and one large plant expansion occurred
between 1968 and 1971. The decision to export all sewage from the
basin and the concurrent availability of federal water pollution
control grants was undoubtedly a major impetus for expansion during
this period.
9-h
7
>-
I—1
o
o
6-
5
5. 3
2 ••
A3
Dl
B3 D3
1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974
Figure VI - 1: TIMING OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY PROVISION AND EXPANSION
KEY:
IS!
IS!
EL DORADO COUNTY
PLACER COUNTY
DOUGLAS COUNTY
WASHOE COUNTY
(1
(2.
(3)
INITIAL PLANT CONSTRUCTION
CAPACITY ALLOCATION FROM OTHER DISTRICT
CAPACITY ADDED
43
-------
Developing useful date on costs has proved very difficult. Estimates
of total wastewater treatment costs have been as high as $82,000,000
(U.S. Senate 1972a, p. 11) in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Most of these
expenditures have been made since 1966 when a bi-state policy man-
dated sewering of all development and the export of all effluent.
Federal grants which have totaled about $16,200,000 have financed
treatment plants, interceptor lines and export facilities.
A quantitative analysis of these costs was not possible. Cost
reporting has been very unreliable both within and among sewerage
districts, and sets of federal grant allocation data collected for
this study have also proved incomplete or inconsistent.
Level 5 - Physical Development
Sewage flows are the best available measure of actual utilization
of wastewater treatment facilities.
Average daily peak month flows have shown large increases as would be
expected in an area experiencing rapid growth. The increases have been
steady and consistent among districts with the exception of the North
Tahoe PUD. At North Tahoe the peak flows have been in March or April
as contrasted to August for the Basin districts as a whole. Snow
melt infiltration into the lines may have contributed substantially
to these peak flows (Walters, 1973).
Treatment plant capacities underlined in Table VI - 14 indicate years
in which peak month average daily flows exceeded rated capacities. This
often resulted in plant overflows. In each case an expanded treat-
ment capacity was added within several years. Federal grants for
treatment plants, interceptor lines and export pumps and lines were
readily available in the mid-sixties to make such expansion economical-
ly feasible (U.S. Senate, 1972a).
Existing equivalent population figures can be derived by dividing
wastewater flows by an assumed number of gallons of wastewater each
person would contribute (Table VI - 16). Estimates of this per capita
factor have varied considerably. The first column of Table VI - 16
provides a range of factors used in various wastewater feasibility
studies. The calculated 1970 seasonal population of 67,900 using a
factor of 75 gallons per capita per day is consistent with other
estimates (see Table VI - 8). The peak population equivalent as
derived in the table is considerably lower than other estimates which
range from 98,885 (Walters Engineering, 1973) to 248,000 (Ray Smith,
1971). These calculations do account for continued use of septic
tanks (perhaps an additional 5,000 persons). In addition, if
-------
infiltration of snow melt and ground water are included in the calcu-
lations, effective treatment flow would also decrease, thus lowering
population equivalent figures by as much as 5,000 to 10,000 persons
GALLONS/
:APITA/
DAY
751
100
1402
AVERAGE
DAILY FLOW
PEAK MONTH
5.096,000
5.096,000
5.096,000
ESTIMATED
SEASONAL
POPULATIONS
67.900
50.960
36,400
PEAK DAY3
6.440.000
6.440.000
6.440,000
ESTIMATED
POPULATION
85.900
64,400
46.000
Tabt* VI - 16: CALCULATED PEAK POPULATION ASSUMING VARIOUS PER
CAPITA FLOWS. LAKE TAHOE BASIN, 1970
Source: Sewerage District Offices
1. Crystal Bay Dew. Co. Incline Village
2. Walters Engineering, 1973
3. Report ort L.T. Region Wastewater Collection. Treatment
ing Disposal, prepared for TRPA, 1971; These figures
•re called Historical Maximum dally flow.
This analysis is of limited value without a method to discount the
per capi.ta factor for day users and overnight visitors. Such an
approach is beyond the scope of this research, but the need for a
more sophisticated factor points out the difficulties inherent in
determining the composition of populations in recreation areas.
Relationships Beteen Land Use and Wastewater Management Activity
The purpose of this part of Section VI is to describe the structural
and causal relationships between land use and wastewater management
data as determined through statistical methods. Since the research
is specifically concerned with the changes and relationships among
data over a 23-year period, time series data were requisite for
statistical analysis.
Extensive sets of data were compiled from primary and secondary sources
to provide a range of measures of various pertinent activities, in-
cluding land use changes, wastewater management, economic indicators,
other infrastructure, and major exogenous factors. These data sets
were then prepared for computer processing. A compilation of data
items is listed in Appendix E.
Data characteristics
Variations in the magnitude and pattern of change in pertinent time-
series data sets have shaped the selection of analytical methods. The
-------
data sets generally fall into four distinct categories as shown in
Table VI - 17. This table graphically illustrates the pattern of
change common to each category by plotting cumulative data totals
over time.
CATEGORY
1
2
3
4
CHARACTERISTICS OF
TEMPORAL CHANGE
steady linear or
exponential Increase
uneven or variable
linear or exponential
increase
stepped, Irregular
Increases
stepped, Irregular
Increase and decrease
1ze/area/no.
*•*
gaARACp STIC PLOT
^^
time
s^f^
time
_J
time
1
time
DATA
population
sewage flows
gaming revenues
subdivision approvals
building permits
traffic volume
skller days
assessed valuation
treatment plant
capacity
wastewator service
district area
land use plan
use-acreages
population holding
capacity of land
use plans
Table VI - 17: DATA CLASSIFICATION SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF LONGITUDINAL CHANGE
Source: staff
These patterns are not unique to the Tahoe case, but appear to be
general properties of land use and infrastructure system data. The
stepped-type pattern (categories 3 and 4) characteristic of infra-
structure activity particularly limits comparisons with data sets in
other categories. T-Tests proved to be the best method for the analy-
sis of stepped-type data.
Data Limitations: Data limitations were also an influential factor in
the selection of analytical methods. The following limitations were
determined:
-------
and of
2. Numerous data gaps exist in spite of a thorough and systematic
reconnaissance of both primary and secondary sources! systematic
HirtiiL Th* Juality of data is poor in many cases. Numerous contra
dictions exist among recorded data. Accounting systems vary amonq
reporting units. Some units are not congruent with the study a?ea.
.^.4* ,The major expansions of sewerage capacity have all occurrpH
within the last two to five years. Land usechange follow ng these
expansions can only be analyzed for a very short period of time
5. The period of time surrounding the creation of TRPA may have
been one of anticipation and adjustment by land developers Tf so,
dJSinSSnl hls,p?ri0d- wou!d not reflect typical patterns of land
development, at least in its relationship to wastewater system activity.
Statistical Analysis
Units of Observation: The Tahoe Basin provides numerous possibilities
for data aggregation: states, counties, wastewater management dis-
tricts, north and south lake shore economies (Symonds, 1970). Five
°f
1. total number of discrete data available;
2. total number of discrete data capable of disaggregation;
USe and wastewater
4. data represented within each of the three levels of land
development influence (i.e., planned, committed, actual);
5* sifnif -ent nUmber °f tirne"series observations for statistical
County level data could best provide for a reasonable range of analy-
sis, especially in the area of land use data. El Dorado, Washoe
. ,
Si Countles ,each Conta1n a large wastewater management
; Placer County contains two large districts. Furthermore
separate treatment plants and export systems now exist for each county.
Land development has varied dramatically among the four counties add
ing another dimension to the analysis. Table VI - 18 combes pre-lgso
47
-------
development with development occurring during the period 1950-1970
and the development projected under the TRPA Plan.
LJ
CC
O
I
LAKE TAHOE
CALIFORNIA
PLACER CO.
YEAR
PRE-1950
1950-19701
1971- 1990 2
ACRES
3840
5910
8570
sq. MILES
6.00
9.23
13.39
', INCREASE
54. 0%
45.0?
EL DORADO CO.
YEAR
PRE-1950
1950-1970
1971-1990
ACRES
4830
10750
11960
SO. MILES
7.55
16.8
18.7
2 INCREASE
122. 6X
11.31
BASIN
NEVADA
YEAR
PRE-1950
1950-1970
1971-1990
WASHOE CO.
ACRES
460
3490
3410
SQ. MILES
.72
5.45
5.33
X INCREASE
659.0?,
0 *,
DOUGLAS CO.
YEAR
PRE-1950
1950-1970
1971-1990
ACRES
940
2040
2710
Sq. MILES
U46
3.19
4.23
X INCREASE
.
117. OX
32.8*
Table VI - 18: PAST AND EXISTING SUBDIVIDED LANDS'AND PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT: LAKE TAHOE BASIN
Note: Pre-1950 and 1950-1970 data are actual subdivided lands; 1971-1990 are lands Indicated for
development on the TRPA plan.
Sources: 1. Staff hand count June 1963 from r-4000' TRPA Base Maps 1971; calculated from UCSC
'Tahoe Data Bank
2. TRPA General Plan 1971; calculated from UCSC Tahoe Data Bank 1973.
On the basis of these factors it is reasonable, as well as practical,
to select a county level of aggregation as the units for statistical
analysis.
48
-------
Prior to undertaking specific analysis, data were organized into six
sets defined by the planned, permitted, and actual development levels
as shown in Figure VI - 19.
LAND
DEVELOPMENT
LEVEL
Conceptual
Cownlttment
(Plans)
Legal
Comnlttment
(Permits,
Approvals)
Physical
Provision
(Construction)
VARIABLE
A. LAND USE MEASURES
A-l. General Plan Use Districts
Zoning Plans
Population Projections
A-2. Subdivision Approvals
A-3. Housing Units
Assessed Valuation
Popul »t1 on—Permanent ,
Seasonal, Peak
Traffic Volumes
Skller Days
Gaming Revenues
B. UASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
B-l. Feasibility Studies
Facility Plans
Population Projections
Service Area Plans
B-2. Annexations; Service
Area Expansions
Facility Grant
B-3. Assessment Districts;
Service Areas
Sewerage Flows
Customers
Treatment Plant
Capacl ty
Table VI - 19: DATA SETS FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Of primary interest is the strength and direction of influence between
and among sets. A total of thirty possible direct relationships
exist among the six sets (6!). Conceptually the influence levels
indicate a time sequence; that is, level two would generally follow
level one. However, a change in level two or three may produce a
?A S?e ln,le!I? °H?' .For examPle* an increase in seasonal population
(A-3) would directly increase"sewage flows (B-3). The population pro-
jection (A-l, B-l) based on this seasonal increase would likely in-
n!USC?RCnn9e 13.9-n-ra1 Plan- an? Z0nin9 (A-l); wastewater facility
plans (B-l); subdivision activity (A-2) and service district annexations
\o-e.).
The necessary data sets include well over one-hundred variables count-
ing discrete data for each county and sewerage district Onlv
^Jnt¥n™nable? are defined by continuous time series data from
1950-1972, considerably limiting analysis of the twenty-three year
period. Data for^STPUD and El Dorado County provide the majority of
complete time series data.
49
-------
The analysis has been conducted using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 5. Statistical analyses including
correlation, factor analysis, regression, and T-tests were employed
to determine the nature and degree of relationships among selected
data sets.
Findings
The following discussion of analytical techniques is presented in sum-
mary form; Appendix D, Statistical Analysis, provides a complete
description of all statistical tests and results.
Correlation: Correlation coefficients indicate the strength of rela-
tionships between pairs of time series of data. The fifteen variables
shown in Table VI - 20 were selected to provide measures of five
development categories: land use, wastewater management, tourist
activity, population, and market influence.
1
lul
0
3
r-
£5
^^
g
-------
A matrix of correlation coefficients was computed for each data pair,
resulting in one-hundred and five discrete coefficients for each county.
The statistically significant correlations all indicate a positive
relationship between variables. Although ninety-nine statistically
significant coefficients were computed, the small sample size (i.e.,
number of years of observation) prohibited statistical differentiation
of the relative strength among coefficients. The significant cor-
relations indicate the data have a positive relationship of unknown
strength. No other conclusion may be drawn from these results.
Factor Analysis: Factor analysis is a widely employed statistical
method for aggregating data sets which exhibit common variation. By
reducing a large number of related variables into factors, the re-
searcher can use fewer measures in analysis without losing the contri-
bution of individual data.
A number of factor matrices were computed for the fifteen data sets
selected for correlation analysis. The resulting factors did not
exhibit any logical structure and were inconclusive for application
in further analysis (see Appendix D).
Regression: Stepwise multiple regression analysis determines which
data, acting independently, best explain or predict the variation in
specified dependent data. A dependent variable is first selected by
the researcher and a "prediction equation" is then computed for
specified independent variables. The regression computations rank the
independent variables according to their strength in explaining change
in the dependent variable. The step indicated by ranking at which
an independent variable enters the regression equation measures its
relative ability to explain the remaining variance in the dependent
variable. An independent variable appearing in step-one indicates
the strongest relationship to the dependent variable; step-two indi-
cates next strongest, etc. Causality can be inferred if the indepen-
dent variable clearly precedes the dependent variable in time.
Discrete measures of land use and wastewater management were selected
as dependent variables for each of the land development influence
levels, i.e., planning, legal commitment, and physical provision. A
wide range of land use and wastewater measures were entered as in-
dependent variables and stepwise regression equations were computed.
By comparing the ranking of independent variables in the regression
equations to the sequence they normally follow in the development pro-
cess (Table VI - 19) causality can be inferred.
Anticipation to treatment plant expansion was statistically tested
by computing regression equations with the dependent variable treat-
ment plant capacity hypothetically advanced by one and two years. Capa-
cities were also hypothetically lagged by one and two years to provide
a corresponding measure of the influence following increased capacity.
51
-------
The following data sets were selected as dependent variables. Waste-
water management activities selected were treatment plant capacity
service area, and treatment plant flows. Land use activities were*
limited to subdivision approvals and total building permits.
The following discussion summarizes the results of the computed regres-
sion equations.
Treatment Plant Capacity, El Dorado County: Five regression equations
were computed for South Tahoe PUD plant capacity by hypothetically
moving the dependent variable (capacity) from minus two years to
plus two years from the date of plant expansion (Table VI - 21). The
variables entering these time series comparisons would indicate
anticipation of expansion (-2, -1 years) and response to expansion
(+1, +2 years).
£„
e£
Sf£
lua:
§5-
M
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
"STEP f~
PRF-EXPAMSIOH
-Zyrs
Subdivision / aci
Approvals t>B5J
Sk1 Days / q,i
South Shore (-97>
-1 yrs
Subdivision i „,»
Approvals ('e''
Bullrflnq / O«L\
Permits UB5)
SM Days , »nl
South Shore <-s"'
Service / OQ1
District 't8S'
FXPANSION
Service / Bn\
District (-8n)
Subdivision! ql\
Approvals ('3i'
,
Gflmlng / 0*\
nouglas Co.l'pz'
Traffic / «3\
Volume (>93)
POST-EXPANSION
»1 yr
Ski nays / B5,
South Shore {-™>
Permanent / P7\
Population l'B7>
fiamlng / 0,»
Douglas Co. 1
-------
the expansion of wastewater management facilities may in fact have
stimulated subdivision activity prior to the opening of expanded
plants, and stimulated intensive recreation following expansion.
Treatment Plant Capacity, Placer County: A distinctly different pat-
tern emerges from a similar analysis of North Tahoe and Tahoe City PUD's
plant expansions in Placer County (Table VI -22 ). In the years
preceding plant expansion, single family building permits are the
dominant land use variable, although in each case it is the second-
step variable in the regression equation. Service area enters at the
first step, indicating an expansion/capacity relationship similar to
that of South Tahoe PUD.
£
lAl lij
INDEPENO
VARIA8L
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP « •
STEP 5
PRE-EXPANSION
-2yr»
Ski Days , „.
North Shore l'S3J
Single , ...
Family , *'S8'
Building
Permits
-lyr
Service / .,«
Area (-B3)
Single , „»
Family ('w}
Building
Permits
Multiple , „.,
Building <'85'
Permits
Permanent / „,.
Population I'"*'
EXPANSION
Multiple , ...
Building <-93)
Permits
Slngl» , „,
Family
-------
Wastewater Flows: Building permits constitute the only significant
variable explaining the character of the dependent variable, treat-
ment plant flows. Single family building permits at the north shore
and total building permits at the south shore were found to be the
best indicators of increased flows.
Subdivision Approvals: The following influences on the dependent
variable, subdivision approvals, were determined. Gross gaming
revenues (Douglas County) provide the initial regression variable in
El Dorado County, followed by plant capacity. In Placer County the
first step variable is permanent population with multiple and motel/
hotel building permits entering at step two.
El Dorado County subdivision activity appears to be stimulated by the
south shore gaming industry perhaps through either direct economic
activity or through high visitor days. Placer County subdivision
activity may reflect demand expressed through growth in population and
construction. This may indicate a stronger regulation of land use in
Placer County in contrast with El Dorado County's apparent policy of
supporting land speculation.
Building Permits and Wastewater Service Areas: No conclusive findings
were determined in the regression equations computed for these variables
T-Tests:
•* !» ———— — — —^ v..v vwwwwiiw w • w WM w i .^ i# i \* * ni i jr QLJ&JQ I Cl I U
difference must be subjected to this kind of testing since the variation
within a group may be too large to allow inferences to be made about
the accuracy of the group mean. This test can be extremely powerful
in situations where the means are sufficiently disparate because a
significant difference can be detected even with very small samples.
Although correlation and regression techniques can be used to determine
the nature and strength of relationships among variables, the peculiar
characteristics of wastewater infrastructure capacity (i.e., the
stepped nature of capacity and the magnitude of capacity added) suggest
a need for analysis of land use measures (subdivision approvals and
building permits) preceding and following treatment plant expansion.
T-test statistics were computed for six land use variables using
groups defined by periods preceding and following treatment plant
expansions and periods when plants experienced flows very near the
limits of their capacity. The six land use variables and the types of
;: The significance of the difference between two group averages
is, can be tested by the Student's T-statistic. Any apparent "
>« A _ __. .._. J. L_ __.!_*_ __i__l _•__ i I * . i • • *• * • • . . . *
54
-------
periods selected, including three hypothetical examples of T-test
results are shown in Table VI - 23.
as 3
C !E O f^ «3?
2D£<»UJ2
C 19 a »> o: •-
31
Ul
s
s
s
J l» ^4 UJ _J
BUILDING
PERMIT
SINGLE
FAMILY
BUILDING
PERMIT
MULTI-
FAMILY
BUILDING
PERMIT
MULTI-
FAMILY
PLUS MOTEL/
GROUPS (YEARS)
PRF-
INITIAL
PLANT
1,
a
POST
INITIAL
PLANT
2m
»
'b
!
t
,
HOTEL
ACRES !
SUBDIVIDED
LOTS i
SUBDIVIDED
J
-LOTS ;
PER "
i ACBf
1
c
PRE-
EXPAN-
SION
'b
•
i
c
OVER
CAPACITY
'b
POST
MAJOR
EXPAN-
SION
2b
2f
c
Table VI -23: LAND USE VARIABLE FRAMEWORK FOR T-TEST GROUPS
Examples a, b, and c Indicate organization of data into
test groups. In example a. the two groups measure building
permits Immediately preceding and following provision of
Initial facilities. Example b groups multiple family building
permits following Initial plant provision and major plant
expansion, and example c measures lots per acre between
provision and expansion grouped Into below and over capacity
periods.
Statistically significant differences were found among eight pairs of
test groups. An additional twelve pairs showed differences in the
variables which were not statistically significant (rusi)» but which
warrant inclusion in the discussion.
El Dorado County: Following the 1968 South Tahoe PUD plant expansion
the average acreage of subdivisions dropped from a 37 acre mean in
1960-1967 to a 19 acre mean in 1968-1972 (Table VI - 24). Since.no
parallel reduction in the number of lots per subdivision accompanied
this reduction in acreage, a large increase must have occurred in
the average density of land use. The number of lots per acre
55
-------
actually increased from 2.6 (1960-1967) to 4.2 (1968-1972).
Period of
Observation
Group 1— Between original
plant capacity and first
plant capacity expansion
Group 2--Between first
plant capacity expansion
and major plant capacity
expansion
Group 1— Between first
plant capacity expansion
and major plant capacity
expansion
Group 2— Following major
plant capacity expansion
Group I—Between first r
plant capacity expansion
and Initial overcapacity
year 1965
Group 2- -Overcapacity years
preceding major plant
capacity expansion
Grouo 1
years
1951-
1959
1960-
1967
1960-
1964
mean
—
«
31
83
3.0
341
283
37
90
2.6
378
213
40
90
2.3
Group 2
years
1960-
1967
1968-
1972
1965-
1967
mean
341
283
37
90
2.6
308
195
19
78
4.2
280
399
32
78
2.8
Test Variable
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
building permits SF
building penr.its MF
acres/ subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
Signf kance (PI
1 ta T
.005
,005
2 tail
.002
.003
Table VI - 24: T-TtST RESULTS — EL DORADO COUNTY (STPUD)
More specifically during that seven-year pre-expansion period, the
number of lots per acre increased from 2.3 in 1960-1964 to 2.8 in
1965-1967 (n.s.j; the latter being a period when the South Tahoe PUD
treatment plant sometimes operated beyond the limits of its capacity
(see Section VII,"County and State Response"). The expansion of
treatment facilities (1960-1972) has been accompanied by a significant
increase in the density (lots per acre) of subdivided property in
El Dorado County.
The number of single family building permits dropped from an annual
mean of 341 permits issued before the 1968 expansion to 308 permits
issued yearly following the expansion (n.s.).
The pre-expansion period from 1960 to 1967 divided into two smaller
periods; 1960-1964, when single family building permits averaged 377
annually and 1965-1967, when permits dropped sharply to a yearly mean
of 280 (n.s.).
These differences in yearly means might be a reflection of a conscious
effort on the part of local officials to curb building construction
56
-------
during periods when flows were very close to capacity. However, during
the same time periods a composite of multiple family and motel/hotel
units increased from an annual mean of 439 in 1960-1964 to 670 in
1965-1967 (n.s.).
The increase in the number of approvals of higher density units came
at a time when overflows of the South Tahoe PUD facility were a highly
visible problem and as such provides further evidence that local land
use controls were not being exercised to maintain environmental quality
in the face of growing-water pollution concerns.'
Douglas County: The amount of subdivision acreage approved annually
has remained relatively constant in Douglas County over the period
1951-1967 (subdivision data observations are not available after 1968).
The number of lots per subdivision increased significantly following
the allocation of a portion of South Tahoe PUD plant capacity (post
1954) until the initial operation of the Douglas County plant in 1968.
The number of lots per subdivision increased from a mean of 16 in
1951-1954 to 48 in 1955-1967, a 200% jump (Table VI - 25).
Period of
Observation
Group 1--Between original
contract with STPUD and
1968 major plant capacity
expansion
Group 2--Fol lowing 1968
major plant capacity
expansion
Group 1— Between original
contract with STPUD and
Initial overcapacity
year 1963
Group 2— Overcapaci ty
years preceding major plant
capacity expansion
Group 1
years
1955-
1967
1955-
1962
nc-^n
54
59
23
16
1.1
58
68
26
52
2.4
Group 2
years
1968-
1972
1963-
1967
r.frJIl
39
49
24
48
2.2
5.1
162
15
38
1.8
Test Variable
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/ subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lilts/subdivision
lots/acre
Significance (P_l
1 tail
<.05
<.005
<.05
2 tail
,06
.001
.094
Table VI - »: T-TEST RESULTS - DOUGLAS COUNTY (DCSIO fl)
Average daily sewage flows peak month, often exceeded allocated capa-
city in the STPUD treatment plant during the period 1963-1967 (see
Table VI - 14). The mean number of lots per subdivision dropped dur-
ing this period to 38 from a mean of 52 during the period from 1955-
1967 (n.s.). Unlike El Dorado County, the density declined from 2.4
lots per acre in the period 1955-1962, to 1.9 lots per acre in
1963-1967 (n.s.).
57
-------
The number of single family building permits issued showed a signifi-
cant decline, from a mean of 54 permits per year (1955-1967) to a
mean of 39 permits per year (1968-1972). The mean number of multiple
family (and motel/hotel) units followed a very different pattern. The
mean of 68 units per year during 1955-1962 jumped to 162 units/year
during the period 1965-1967. There was no increase in the mean number
of multiple units from 1968-1972 (n,s.).
As in the case of El Dorado County, increases in multiple family and
motel/hotel units occurred during the same period when sewage flows
exceeded plant capacity in the six years preceding the expansion of
the STPUD plant and the initial operation of the Douglas County plant.
Placer County: A significant reduction in the number of acres per sub-
division is apparent in Placer County following the opening of a joint
treatment plant in 1970 (Table VI - 26). The size of the average sub-
division dropped off sharply from 25 acres (1964-1969) to 12 acres
(1970-1972).
Period of
Observation
Group 1 --Between original
plant capacl ty and major
plant capacity expansion
In 1970
Group 2--Fol lowing 1970
major plant capacl ty ex-
pansion
Group 1— Between original
plant capacity and over-
capacity years
Group 2--Overcapactty
years preceding 1969 major
plant capacity expansion
Group I—Overcapacity years
preceding 1969 expansion
Group 2--Follow1ng 1970
plant capacity expansion
Group 1
1954-
1969
1954-
1964
1965-69
mean
53
47
25
59
2.3
160
4
23
52
2.3
.
90
Group 2
years
1970-
1972
1965-
1969
1970-72
mean
182
287
12
58
4.8
186
90
27
75
2.4
959
Test Variable
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
bunding permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
but Id fog permits 5F
building permits' HF
building permits H/H
S ant/kance 'P)
tail
.0005
.0005
<1.05
2 ta'l
.001
.001
.07
Table VI - 26: T-TEST RESULTS « PLACER COUNTY (NTPUD and TCPUD)
(SF=-S1ngle Family Residential; MF«Mu1t1ple Family Residential)
The annual mean number of lots per subdivision remained constant for
these two time periods, although an appreciable increase is apparent
in the years immediately preceding the 1970 plant opening when peak
sewage flows were a great concern (see Section VII). During this time
the mean number of lots per subdivision was 75, considerably higher
than the mean of 52 from 1954-1964 (n.s.).
There was no corresponding increase in density (lots per acre) in
the periods preceding 1970. A significant increase from a mean of
58
-------
2.3 lots per acre (1954-1969) to 4.8 lots per acre (1970-1972) has
occurred since 1970.
The mean number of single family building permits issued also shows a
sizeable increase during the post-plant expansion period. The mean of
47 permits per year from 1954-1969 increased sixfold to 287 per year
in 1970-1972 (n.s.). In addition, a significant increase from 4
permits (19 -19 ) to 90 permits occurred during the overcapacity
period (1965-1969).
The most dramatic increase is found in the number of building permits
issued for multiple family and motel/hotel units. The mean number of
units permitted went from 90 units per year during the period 1965-1969.
to 959 units per year from 1970 to 1972 (n.s.).
The nature of this increase cannot be explained in statistical terms.
Nonetheless, an increase of this dimension would not appear to be a
random event although, as previously noted, increases in multiple units
follow national trends. It is reasonable to conclude that the ex-
panded North Tahoe and Tahoe City plant has encouraged an extremely
rapid development of multiple and tourist units on the California north
shore.
Washoe County: No statistically significant changes in subdivision
activity were determined for Washoe County, although several observed
differences can be noted (Table VI - 27). Subdivision acreages have
remained reasonably constant for each year during the period 1951 to
Period .of
Observation
Group I—preceding original
plant capacity
Group 2— Between original
plant capacity and 1971
plant capacity expansion
Group 1 —Between original
plant capacity and 1971
plant capacity expansion
Group 2— Fol lowing 1971
major plant capacity
expansion
Group 1
years
1951-
1961
1962-
1970
mean
, 249
7
72
106
1.6
200
155
08
155
2.4
Group 2
years
1962-
1970
1971-
1972
li.Mfl
200
155
68
155
2.4
141
313
23
N.A.
N.A.
Test Variable
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
building permits SF
building permits MF
acres/subdivision
lots/subdivision
lots/acre
Significance P)
1 tail
2 ta 1
Table VI - 27: T-TEST RESULTS - HASHOE COUNTY (IVGIO)
59
-------
The establishment of the Incline Village sewage treatment plant in 1962
was followed by an increase in lots per subdivision from a mean of
106 per year in 1951 to 1961, to a mean of 155 in 1962 to 1970 (n.s.).
During the same periods, lots per acre increased from 1.6 per year to
2.4 (n.s.).
The number of single family building permits showed a slight decline
in the second period (1962-1970) from 249 per year to 200 per year.
Multiple family-motel/hotel permits jumped from a mean of 7 units in
1951 to 1961, to 155 units permitted per year in 1962 to 1970 (n.s.).
In addition, since the 1971 Incline Village GID plant expansion, single
family building permits have dropped from a mean of 200 per year (1962-
1970) to 141 per year (1971-1972) while permits for multiple family
units increased from 155 units to 313 for the respective periods.
Subdivision of Marginal Lands
A final observation should be made about the environmental quality
aspects of subdivision control as related to the physical and ecologi-
cal characteristics of the land subdivided in the Tahoe Basin. Since
the provision of wastewater facilities has been determined to be a
significant influence in land subdivision, an important question may
be logically raised: to what degree was marginal land (i.e., land
with limiting physical or ecological characteristics such as steep
slopes, high erosion hazard, etc.) approved for subdivision activity?
To address this question an analysis was made of the geographic location
of subdivisions in terms of two indicators of marginal land—slope
categories and land capability (ecological classification of Tahoe Basin
lands developed by the U. S. Forest Service) (USFS 1972; TRPA 1972a).
First a dominant slope and land capability classification were deter-
mined for each subdivision. The subdivisions were next divided into
five periods according to their approval dates. Then the slope
and land capability of the respective periods were compared to
determine differences or trends.
Slope: Low, moderate and steep slope conditions for land subdivision
in the Tahoe Basin were categorized. Most moderate and steep slope
lands (10% slope and above) have the potential for considerable erosion
in the process of physical development given the characteristic of
the dominant soils found in the Basin. The following observations
60
-------
and conclusions can be drawn from Table VI - 28.
K ... — _
Period
PRE 1950
1951-1955
1956-19CO
1961-1965
1966-1970
TOTAL
^10-255;
> 252
<10*
10-251
>2K
oos
10-25T
•>23S
10-251
>75Z
<10r;
10-25S
>25J
on*
-j~ ,
_
-EiJta.
3490
1010
520
690
100
0
1870
600
70
1250
230
70
630
130
0
7930
2150
660
.- . -.. ..
TadD_
70
?0
10
87
13
0
71
26
3
81
15
4
in
17 ;
0
74
20
6
.._ _
PJ4.W
•irrc ,
2360
1160
320
90
80
0
270
230
10
430
270
20
530
200
0
3680
1940
350
1 ill lt| 1
61
30
9
53
47
0
53
45
2
60
37
3
73
27
n
62
32
6
V
_Doufll j
.irirs
590
310
40
90
50
0
230
160
20
150
170
60
70
90
30
1130
780
150
it
63
33
4
64
n
56
39
5
39
45
U.
37
47
K,
55
38
7
p 7
nrrrs
I
220
180
60
0
0
0
20
20
40
1040
460
220
160
920
150
1440
1580
470
T
48
39
1J
0
0
0
40
40
60
27
13
13
75
12
42
45
13
f
IWMN
lota Is
arrps t
6660 65
2660 ?6
940 .9
870 79
230 21
0 0
2390 66
1090 'J
140 *
2870 66
1130 26
370 8
1390 41)
1340 46
180 6
14180 64
6450 29
1630 7
TABIE VI - 23:
COMPARISON OF SLOPE CATEGORIES OF SUBDIVIDED LAND-FIVE YEAR PERIODS (1950-1970)
Source: Hand counted subdivision approvals on TRPA 1"-400' scale HMDS
matched with UCSC Tahoe Data Bank Slope categories : P
\10S, 10-25X, >25X. .
Prior to 1950 subdivisions had been approved on 10,200 acres; 6660
acres on slopes under 10%, 2660 acres on slopes between 10 and 25%,
and 910 acres on slopes exceeding 25% slope. These acreages represent
65%, 26%, and 9% respectively; a distribution closely reflecting that
for all land subdivided through 1970.
Major differences in the slopes of subdivided land occurred in three
of the four five-year periods; one period--1966-1970--indicates a
slope distribution which differs considerably from the other periods.
During this period the subdivision of land on slopes exceeding 10%
slope increases significantly, with 46% of the subdivisions in the
10-25% slope category. More than half of the subdivision activity in
the late 1960's occurred on land with at least a 10% slope. This is
primarily attributable to the development of Incline Village in Washoe
County where over 1000 acres were subdivided on lands greater than
10% slope.
61
-------
The influence of wastewater management facilities on the development
of these lands cannot be directly determined, since similar slopes had
previously been subdivided using septic tanks. If data on the septic
tank limitations of soil types and geology were available, a specific
analysis of this relationship between subdivided marginal land and
sewerage treatment provision would be possible.
The slopes of subdivided lands differ considerably from north shore to
south shore and between states. El Dorado County has both the greatest
acreage (7930) and highest percentage (74%) of lands of less than 10%
slope. While erosion potential should be less in El Dorado County,
environmental problems associated with high water table, flood plains,
wetlands, and meadows could occur.
In the Nevada counties the land available for development is considerably
steeper, which largely accounts for the differences in development be-
tween the two states.
Land Capability: Lands unsuited for development (capability districts
1-3) have been grouped together as have lands which are capable of
supporting residential and urban uses (districts 4-7) (see page 91 for a
description of the USFS and TRPA land capability districts). A compari-
son between slope and land capability as measures of marginal land in-
dicates that they do not define identical areas.
A significant change in the distribution of capability districts of
subdivided land occurs in 1956-1960. El Dorado County, rather than
Washoe County, is the dominant location of subdivided land in low
capability districts (1670 acres) (Table VI - 29).
Lands subdivided prior to 1950 include some 4000 acres of land in low
capability districts. Furthermore, by the time of TRPA formation (1970)
over 9000 acres, or nearly fifteen square miles of low capability land
had been subdivided. Under the TRPA land use ordinance, these lands
would have been limited to land coverage of less than 5%. (See
page 91 for a description of the TRPA land use ordinance). Using
the TRPA land capability criteria, 42% of the presently subdivided
land would never have been approved for subdivision due to potentially
adverse environmental impacts including erosion, sedimentation,
revegetation limitations and landslides and related surficial pro-
cesses.
Additional data would be necessary to determine the specific in-
fluence of the provision of sewerage facilities on the development
62
-------
of marginal land. The fact that the amount of marginal land developed
during the late 1960's when wastewater management facilities expanded
rapidly leads to the implication that such provision did remove
development constraints on a significant amount of land subsequently
approved for subdivisions.
Period
Pre 1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
TOTAL
Land
Capability
Low
High
Low
Ml ah
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
COUNTY
El Dorado
dcres
2180
2840
320
260
1670
950
680
870
170
590
5020
5720
I
43
57
55
45
64
36
44
56
22
78
47 ,
S3
Placer
acroo
1180
2660
20
150
200
310
210
510
220
510
1830
4140
»
31
69
12
88
39 .
61 I
29
71
30
70
30
70
Uouolas
acrr")
490
450
140
0
260
150
320
60
170
20 '
1380
680
*
52
48
100
0
63
37
84
16
89
11
66
34
Hashoe
acres
170
290
0
0
60
20
370
1350
640
590
1240
2250
"
37
63
0
0
75
25
22
78
52
48
35
65
BASIN
TOTAL
SOTS
4020
6240
480
620
2190
1430
1580
2790
1200
1710
9470
12790
— »
>•
39
61
44
56
60
40
36
64
41
59
42
58
TABLE « - 29:
COMPARISON OF LAND CAPABILITIES OF SUBDIVIDED LAND-FIVE YEAR PERIODS (1950-1970)
'Source: Hand counted subdivision approvals on TRPA 1"«400' scale maps matched
with TRPA land capability districts : Low«l,2,3; H1gh-4,5,6,7,
63
-------
SECTION VII
POLICY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
The purpose of this section is to present and evaluate selected aspects
of the relationships between the development of wastewater facilities
and changing land use patterns. The role and activities of the Federal
and State agencies responsible for resolving water pollution concerns
will be investigated first. In particular the planning and coordination
of wastewater programs will be examined with respect to the consequent
impact of these programs on land use patterns.
Coordination among agencies who provided a local response to water pol-
lution issues is the second discussion point. A third area of concern
is the examination of the effectiveness of land use regulation by
public agencies during the periods of expansion of wastewater treat-
ment facilities. The transition from local to regional land use plan-
ning and regulation is the final topic of discussion.
Selected Findings
--Engineering and costs considerations were the major, if not the sole
concern of Federal review of applications for wastewater grants.
~A 1971 wastewater plant improvement project report does not mention
land use or development in its federally required assessment of impact!
even though the project would double the plant's treatment capacity.
—A June 1973 environmental impact report on expanding the Tahoe City
PUD system acknowledges that construction of sewage collectors will
remove a serious economic constraint on development in an area zoned
General Forest which explicitly prohibits residential use.
--Natural limits on the amount of water for domestic supply have not
been thoroughly evaluated in wastewater studies, particularly in view
of the Bi-State Water Compact allocation limits and the export of
sewage (with attendant domestic water) from the Basin.
64
-------
--The TRPA plan severely limits new residential subdivision activity;
while permitting means of exceptions to land coverage constraints for
multiple residences and commercial uses of high intensity on land
zoned appropriately before TRPA, but which has been shown to be
highly susceptible to development disturbance (Low land capability
districts).
--Wastewater treatment facility impacts were not a central consi-
deration in the development of the TRPA plan. Reports prepared for
the agency are vague, contain much inconsistent and incomplete data,
and do not provide a sufficient information base from which to guide
regional decision-making.
Government Response to Lake Tahoe Water Pollution Concerns
Federal and State Programs
The present forms of the wastewater treatment systems at Lake Tahoe
are partially the result of conditions unique to the Basin, but are
also a reflection of overall water pollution control strategies of
the federal government and the states of California and Nevada. This
discussion briefly examines the major federal and state programs
affecting water quality in the Tahoe Basin.
The federal government has directed and assisted the states in their
efforts to achieve clean water. The 1965 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) amendments provided federal construction grant
funds (30% up to a limit of $250,000) for municipal treatment facili-
ties (Davies, 1970). Conference procedures for federal involvement
and enforcement in interstate water quality problems were also estab-
lished.
These amendments further called for the establishment of water quality
standards and for implementation plans for all interstate waters. Pro-
visions were also made to increase the federal share to 55% when
states contributed an additional 25% of the cost and met certain
other requirements including prior planning for water quality.
The two states each promulgated their own water pollution control laws.
In 1949 Nevada approved a law and regulations to protect the Lake Tahoe
Watershed (Nevada State Division of Health, 1958). The state in 1967
set water quality criteria for the Lake as required by the federal
act. Upon approval by the FWPCA in 1968 these criteria became
State-Federal water quality standards. Nevada did not, however, develop
a construction assistance program.
California, operating under the Water Quality Act of 1949 (the
Dickey Act) established state and regional boards to manage water qual-
ity programs and administer federal grants. The act also set up a
65
-------
loan program for assistance in treatment facility construction. For
several years after 1966 the funds available for such loans were
earmarked for the Lake Tahoe area (California Water Resources Con-
trol Board (WRCB) ,1969).
The state adopted policies for Lake Tahoe water quality in 1967. The
following year the FWPCA approved these policies as State-Federal
water quality standards. In 1969 the California legislature passed
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act which included special pro-
visions for the connection of all buildings to a district sewage
system and export of treated waste from the Basin (California WRCB,
The passage of the California Clean Water Bond Act of 1970 enabled
the state to participate in the federal matching grants program and
led to the formulation of more detailed requirements for planning
for water quality. As a result of the Clean Water Act the funding
ratio changed to 55% federal; 25% state; and 20% local.
The 1972 FWPCA Amendments maintained the existing federal approval
standards, but changed the funding ratio again. Presently the federal
share is a flat 75%, regardless of any state contribution. Pre-
sently California divides the remainder equally with the particular
locality—12 1/2% each. In Nevada, the local share is 25%.
State and Local Activities: During the 1950's and early 1960's
pollution resulting from sewage disposal was considered the major
threat to the water quality of Lake Tahoe. Predictably, actions
were taken on all jurisdictional levels to limit pollution. Un-
fortunately, the actions were not coordinated, nor were they consistent
among counties or between states. The plans and commitments of local
wastewater management districts were seldom considered by larger
governmental agencies concerned with land use problems.
State and local actions to limit pollution are summarized below.
These activities have been selectively compiled from "Lake Tahoe,"
the newsletter of the Lake Tahoe Area Council. (A more comprehensive
chronicle appears in Appendix A.)
Nevada State and Counties: Nevada first acted to limit water pollution
in the Tahoe Basin by the 1958 adoption of a "Law Relating to Protec-
tion of Lake Tahoe Watershed" and "Regulations Governing the Lake
Tahoe Watershed." These regulations stated:
Subdivision plans shall not be approved (by the Bureau of
Environmental Health) unless there is provision for service
to an approved sewage collection, treatment, and effluent
disposal system, and a surface drainage system, all with
capacity to accommodate the volumes anticipated without
contamination of a water supply or violation of Water Pol-
ution Regulations. (Nevada State Division of Health, 1958;
Reg. #8)
66
-------
The Board of Health in Nevada chose also to restrict the issuance of
permits for large commercial projects. Gaming facilities were the
major customers in two Nevada sewerage districts, Washoe and Douglas
County SIDs. Building permits for new casinos were delayed when
each district reached the contractual limits of sewage capacity
negotiated with the adjacent California districts. This action re-
presented the first attempt to restrict growth on the basis of a
lack of available capacity in existing treatment plants.
In 1963 the State Bureau of Environmental Health requested that the
Washoe County Planning Board discontinue issuing permits for develop-
ments contributing sewage in excess of 2,000 gallons per day. The
Board of Health banned all new commercial construction in Douglas
County in 1965, while requiring minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square
feet (nearly 1/4 of an acre) where septic tanks were to be installed.
Two years later, in June 1967, the Board of Health adopted a Regional
Water Quality Implementation Plan, calling for export of all effluent
?&,-* U9?vernor O'Callaghan issued an executive order in January
1971, prohibiting further septic tanks in the Nevada portion of the
basin and requiring an existing tanks to be sealed and converted to
holding tanks. In May of 1973 the Federal District Court decreed a
new building ban within the boundaries of two of the last sewage
districts planning to build collection systems (Tahoe-Douglas and
Kingsbury) until the systems could begin service. This ban did not
take effect until December 1973.
California State and Counties: Restrictions on a minimal allow-
able lot size and wastewater flows tended to limit the extent and
intensity of subdivisions lacking sewage treatment facilities.
For example, in 1958, El Dorado County required a lot size of 10,000
aKn nnn* min1mu! 1J !J contained either a well or a septic tank,
and 20,000 square feet if it contained both. Only 6,000 square
feet were required if both water and sewer lines were available. The
consultants for the STPUD sewerage survey sum up the impact of these
requirements clearly: "Anywhere from two to three times as many lot!
Mr, ^f ?J»*™fJfh!r^ by EuK1c "!J*r and sewerage'systems
In 1962 the Placer County Board of Supervisors also adopted a
requirement that only those lots with at least 10,000 square feet
would be allowed to use septic tanks.' During the same year, the
Lanontan Regional Water Quality Board issued the first cease and
nnnHc • + &^nstJP* Soilth Tahoe PUD because of overtaxed holding
MstPlct
67
-------
By 1965 El Dorado County required that new subdivisions install sewers
before housing construction began. The Tahoma area was an exception
as large scale building was allowed on septic tanks. An example of '
this was the "Water's Edge Condominiums" a 39-unit development in
Tahoma, which had a 2,000 gallon per day leaching field 300 feet from
the lakeshore. The Lahontan Board later required both well monitoring
of this system and sewer hook-ups as soon as facilities were available
(which came in 1972 with the annexation of this area to the Tahoe City
PUD).
Placer County began to enforce a similar requirement for new subdivisions
in 1965. Several other policies were also in effect in Placer County.
First, all septic tank permits were considered to be of a temporary
nature, expiring as soon as a sewage export system was available.
Second, septic systems discharging more than 2,000 GPD were not per-
mitted. Third, any subdivision with a density of 3 units per acre or
greater was required to form a county sanitation district (under juris-
diction of the Board of Supervisors) to facilitate later incorporation
into an existing district.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Commission adopted a resolution in 1965
requesting that each county require sewer lines in all new subdivisions.
In early October the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(LRWQCB) issued a cease and desist order against the South Tahoe
PUD after excessive overflows from its treatment plant began reaching
Lake Tahoe. Later that month LRWQCB sought an injunction against STPUD
for continued violation of the cease and desist order.
In December of 1965 the Lahontan Board considered, but subsequently
rejected, the imposition of a building ban at South Lake Tahoe,
stating that it had no authority to do so. The El Dorado County Board
of Supervisors took the same position. There is a clear disparity
between the California authorities' powers, as reflected in this un-
willingness to take action, and the Nevada Board of Health, which
could rely on the permit process established in the "Laws and Regula-
tions Governing the Lake Tahoe Watershed" adopted in 1958.
The North Tahoe PUD informed the Placer County Health Department in May
1966 that its sewage flows were approaching thfe plant's capacity and
that it could not hook up more than a few single family dwellings. In
June, the '-'isntan Board adopted its Water Quality Control Program,
which included a provision to prohibit any sewer connections that
would overburden the system (Policy 6B). Unfortunately, the Lahontan
Board had no power to enforce this provision. The Water Quality Control
Program set no deadline, but encouraged the enactment of state legis-
lation and local ordinances to require collecting, treating, and ex-
porting all sewage produced in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The Federal Enforcement Conference of" July, 1966 set a goal of
completing the connection of all developable land to a treatment and
68
-------
export system by 1970, and recommended legislative programs designed
to achieve that goal.
The LRWQCB in May, 1967 adopted Regional Water Quality Standards which
required export to be completed by 1970. Meanwhile the North Tahoe
PUD continued to experience grave problems with its sewage treatment
plant. A building ban was imposed finally by Placer County in 1967
based on inadequate treatment capacity (Ayer, 1971). The Lahontan
Board issued a cease and desist order for overflows caused by an early
spring thaw and the resulting infiltration of snow melt into the lines.
This order was later rescinded in March 1968 when an extensive sewer
sealing program was undertaken.
In 1968 the California Legislature adopted the 1970 deadline for
sewage export, although in 1969 the deadline was amended so as to go
into effect on January 1, 1972.
The Lahontan Board issued another cease and desist order against both
North Tahoe and Tahoe City PUD's because of over burdened facilities
in 1971. This time, however, the Board took the initiative of restrict-
ing new sewer hook-ups (tantamount to a building ban, since Placer
County no longer allowed unsewered construction) except for limited
approvals by the Executive Officer. The order was rescinded on
January 29, 1972 after increased disposal capacity at the Cinder Cone
was granted by the U.S. Forest Service. Meanwhile, the Regional Office
of the Federal Housing Authority announced a temporary moratorium on
FHA loans in the Tahoe Basin, until an adequate sewer system for the
North Shore could be provided.
On July 26, 1972, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, only a year-and-
a-half old, adopted a resolution requiring prospective developers to
prove the adequacy of not only sewage systems, but other utilities.
Though all jurisdictions did indeed take an active and progressive
role in requiring sewer connection and construction for new develop-
ments, these requirements were seldom tied in with timetables for
the expansion of actual plant capacities (see Table VI - 14).
County Boards of Supervisors and Regional and State Boards have shown
great reluctance to interrupt building activity while sewage plant
capacities were being increased.
This reluctance seems analogous to the difficulty in securing a state
of emergency proclamation (normally issued only after a natural
disaster) in order to prevent an almost certain catastrophe. The
extreme fire danger potential of storm-downed and frost-killed trees
around San Francisco Bay in 1973 provides a good example. Citizens
requested that various authorities fund a fire preventive cleanup.
The response was that there is no legal precedent for using emergency
funds in advance of a disaster.
69
-------
Influence of Water Quality Projects on Land Use
There is little evidence at Lake Tahoe of in-depth examination of in-
fluences or impacts of proposed wastewater systems on land use. This
is partly because documents which were called regional wastewater plans
merely provided a general discussion of the need for and location of
facilities. A second reason is that discussion in plans of impacts
on the land use pattern was only recently required.
Several pollution control plans were promulgated by the water quality
agencies dealing with Lake Tahoe (the Lahontan Regional Board re-
presenting the California State Water Resources Control Board and the
Bureau of Environmental Health acting in Nevada). The first of these,
a Report on Water Pollution Control, Northwestern Lahontan Basin (U.S.
Public Health Service, 1953) was a joint effort between these state
agencies and the U.S. Public Health Service. It merely compiled a
list of needed treatment facilities.
California and Nevada each prepared an implementation plan for the
Lake Tahoe Water Quality Standards in 1967 as a response to federal
requirements (California RWQCB Lahontan Region, 1967a; Nevada Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare, 1967). Both plans incorporated the re-
quirements of collection and export suggested in the 1963 Lake Tahoe
Area Council sponsored Comprehensive Study (Engineering Science, 1963)
on waste disposal.
None of these studies draws a connection between wastewater treat-
ment and the type and/or intensity of land uses in a given area. In
addition these official reports make no attempt to explain the basis
for projecting future treatment needs (see Appendix C), nor do they
examine the effects of projected population growth implied by future
treatment needs. As an example the California 1967 implementation
plan makes no mention of the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission "1980
Plan."
Even when comprehensive planning under EPA Directive 18CFR 601 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971) became a prerequisite for
obtaining federal construction grants, there was no requirement that
land use impacts be cited. The California Lahontan Regional water
Quality Control Board adopted an Interim Basin Plan (California
RWQCB, Lahontan Region 1971a) to fulfill comprehensive planning re-
quirements, but Nevada officials, foreseeing no immediate aid re-
quests, did not formulate a plan.
The California plan took a form similar to previous efforts; i.e.,
setting standards, listing discharge prohibitions and examining ways
to achieve water quality objectives—again through a facilities list.
70
-------
The level of generality was high; no plant sizes or projected ser-
vice populations were listed.
The Interim Basin Plan recognized that "potential problems in the
Truckee River Watershed (including Lake Tahoe) stem from the predicted
increase in development" (California RWQCB Lahontan Region, 1971a,
p. 11). However, the plan did not indicate the magnitude of develop-
ment and did not suggest a strategy for controlling or reducing growth.
Grant Review and Environmental Impact Statements: Federal and state
review and evaluation of construction grants did not lead to a com-
prehensive and integrated planning process. Interviews with EPA
officials responsible for review of grant applications for the Basin
during the mid-1960's reveal that the engineering and cost aspects of
the projects were the major if not sole concern, and that secondary
impacts and the relationship of the treatment capacity to land develop-
ment or land use plans were not considered to any significant degree
(personal interviews with Vern Tenney and John Wise, May 1973). These
interviews are corroborated by the lack of explicit federal or state
guidelines or policies requiring investigation beyond engineering
aspects during the period in which the treatment and export systems
were expanded to their present dimensions.
California entered the grant-review process with the passage of the
Clean Water Bond Law in 1970. A newly formed grant program team pro-
mulgated a set of "Project Report Guidelines" in July 1971, (Califor-
nia Water Resources Control Board, 1971a) requiring inclusion of
extensive and detailed planning information.
Among the most crucial items required were an accounting of the methods
used to develop service population forecasts, and a comparison with
other forecasts made for population of the area. Also required were
a discussion of project conformance to the Basin Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan and other pertinent regional and official plans (such as
the TRPA plan) and an environmental impact report.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is an important part
of the grant review. It is a vehicle for evaluating the impacts of
projects for which grant aid has been requested, and could provide
a framework for identifying such secondary impacts as the effects
of a project on land development and the pattern of urbanization, and
could provide for the evaluation of subsequent water quality impacts
of that development.
Figure VII - 1 depicts the present intensive review route for pro-
posed projects. Note that an environmental assessment is required
71
-------
by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the
project report.
2. SETTIHC Of HEV
]. PROJECT REPORT
1. PROJECT I 1ST
Fart of Basin Plan to
Implement Water Quality
Objectives
(Regional Board
Hearing
S
V
» f
Stite Board
Hearing
EPA Evaluates Priority
Criteria Basis for List
EPA Approves Vrear list
WASTE ET5 CHARGE
REOUI RE'ftnT
tin Basis of
Basin Plan
N fteotonal fln*r<(
' UDR Hearing
A-95 Review |
T
j ^
Environmental
Asiessnent
' Board
Review
.
— ? State
Approval
J i
j- ~J 3£ .
'EPA Adviiei
|on Project
4. APPLICATION
5. CP.ANT CONTRACTS i
Submit to State Board:
Application forms
AM Oocunents (Including
Envtro rental Assessment)
Firm Local Financing
x
•x
\
•;
«vf7i'n~'~J
lmT]
1 ! and Specs 1
1 "— '
t. COM5TP.IICTIQN
Procedure Before
|Er5liieer)ng.. Financial 1-Kore Extensive
i Feas1o1l1ty. Environnienull'and J
||!»Ur QjaHty Impict ^ilntenstve Rcvlewj
Mgur. vil-l: .MASTEUATU GRANT REVIEW PROCESS (CALIFORHIA)
'Nenest GuldtHnts
Procedure In New
'Guidelines
The Environmental Impact Statement, a key provision of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1970), has been required for federal
projects which would created significant environmental impacts. A
similar document—the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—has been
required since 1970 for California projects falling under provisions
of CEQA. The EPA treats this document as the environmental assess-
ment upon which it bases its decision on whether to write its own
EIS or to issue a "negative declaration" stating that there will be
no significant impact from the project.
The environmental impact reporting process has undergone considerable
evolution since enactment of laws providing environmental quality con-
trols but there has been little change in the basic issues. The
concerns raised above have remained: the strength of state and fed-
eral guidelines for determining the need for a statement; the scope
and detail required when a statement is deemed necessary; and the
degree to which these guidelines are implemented on a case by case
basis.
72
-------
It is important to note that at Lake Tahoe the major expansion of
both sewerage district boundaries and treatment capacities was com-
pleted by 1971. These expansions were not affected by the requirements
for environmental impact statements.
The importance of considering secondary impacts of a project was under-
scored in the 1971 CEQ guidelines. These guidelines required that,
. . . implications, if any, of the action for
population distribution or concentration should be
estimated and an assessment made of the effect of any
possible change in population patterns upon the resource
base, including land use, water, and public services, of
the area in question. (CEQ, 1972, p. 407)
While these guidelines were in effect, impact assessments were prepared
for South Tahoe PUD's plant improvements (Cornell et al., 1971),
and Tahoe City and North Tahoe PUD's Dollar Point lift station
(Dewante & Stowell, 1972); and plant improvements (Dewante & Stowell,
1971a). These assessments were extremely brief and emphasized the
justification of the project.
The STPUD plant improvements report does not mention land use or
development, although the project would double the firm treatment
capacity of the district's plant. The north shore Dollar Point lift
station report devotes only a paragraph each to population growth
and land use, but makes a significant comment:
The project will of itself have no effect on population
concentration or distribution, but is part of an overall
sewerage system which is in compliance with planning for
the area by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
and other concerned agencies, and this project will restrict
growth to the planned growth of the region in compliance
with the recently proposed restrictions of TRPA for the
Lake Tahoe Basin. (Dewante & Stowell, 1972)
In fact, the TRPA population figures used to calculate the capacity
for the lift station (29,500 people in 1990 and 39,000 at saturation
density in 2020), have been subsequently reduced by one-third to
26,100 at saturation (Walters Engineering, 1973). However the project
was granted funds to provide for the higher service level which now
conflicts with newer TRPA population projections. This situation
emphasizes the need for supplementing a statement on the project's
conformance to existing plans with an independent evaluation of the
impacts of the changes in land use facilitated by that project.
In early 1973 California took a step towards evaluating impacts on
land use by requiring a new report section which will :
73
-------
discuss the ways in which the proposed project could
foster economic or population growth either dir.ect-
ly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Included in this are projects which would remove
obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a
wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow
for more construction in the service areas). (Cali-
fornia Resources Agency, 1973)
Two impact assessments written to meet these guidelines are evaluated
below. The first is an environmental impact assessment for the Tahoe-
Truckee Sanitary Agency Regional Sewerage Plan (which includes TCPUD
and NTPUD), originally produced in February 1973, and amended in May
to conform with the new guidelines. It acknowledged the land use
impact of several alternatives. Regarding one alternate the EIA
states that:
proposed sizing of the interceptor between Lawton and
Reno would permit the projected population to expand . . .
thus the interceptor would open an area to development in
what appears to be an unplanned manner. (Jones and Stokes,
1973, p. 491)
In assessing the effects of the interceptor between Tahoe City and the
proposed treatment plant in Martis Valley the report states:
community growth in this area will cause a degradation
of the social, aesthetic and ecological environment of
the Truckee River Canyon . . . greater congestion . . .
degradation of air quality, increased noise, and the
possible conversion from wild to suburban-urban atmos-
phere. (Jones and Stokes, 1973, )
Having recognized this probability, though, the assessment made no
attempt to propose a mitigation of these negative impacts. Rather, it
leaves this issue to the land use planners:
Whether this projected growth takes place is dependent
upon the planning agencies responsible irregardless
(sic) of whether they are state, county or city agen-
cies and not on TTSA. Growth planned to gain the maxi-
mum benefit from the environment must be done by
properly constituted planning agencies. (Jones and
Stokes, 1973, p. 119)
The EPA announced in May 1973 that it would prepare an EIS for the
project. This decision was based on EPA "Interim Regulations for the
74
-------
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements" of January 1973 which
call for a statement when "treatment works will induce or encourage
significant changes in industrial.commercial, or residential con-
centrations or distributions" (U.S. EPA, 1973).
If the environmental assessment of the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency
sewerage plan places unwarranted faith in the ability of the land
planners to implement their plans, the second and most recent waste-
water EIR available for review (a project to expand the Tahoe City
PUD collection system) deals a serious blow to the attempts of planners
to regulate land use. The Draft EIR for Sewer Assessment District
No. 7C (Dewante and Stowel!, 1973) acknowledges that construction of
the collection system will remove a serious economic constraint on
any development currently using holding tanks. The report then states
that TRPA would prefer no dwellings in this area which is designated
General Forest, a land use classification which explicitly pro-.
hibits residential uses (TRPA 1972a).
The report goes on to establish that the TRPA has lacked the resources
to purchase these lands; that the project would dramatically increase
the value of the subdivided lots in the project area, placing them
further out of the reach of the TRPA or any other body purchasing
land for preservation; and that in view of its inability to purchase
the lots, TRPA has felt obligated to allow one dwelling unit on each
parcel.
The EIR concludes that since the size of these dwellings is restricted
in relation to lot size and the dwellings are subject to normal build-
ing permit review procedures, the controls "would appear adequate to
control . . . growth." (Dewante & Stowell, 1973, p. 24). The
authors of the environmental impact report thus avoid the more logical
conclusion that the net impact of the action they purport to evaluate
is to frustrate the original TRPA plan which allowed no dwellings in
the areaj a condition that would continue if the project were not to
change it.
Awareness of the relationship of wastewater facilities to land use and
development is growing. Regulatory mechanisms are being created to
deal with that relationship. Yet there is little basis for a determina-
tion that these mechanisms will actually insure an adequate meshing
of wastewater and land use planning.
Local Sewerage District Activities
The physical parameters of the development and expansion of sewerage
districts is discussed above in Section VI under Measures of Waste-
water Management Activity.
Policy analysis of sewerage district decision-making has not proved
to be possible within the limits of this research. Specifically an
75
-------
analysis of the relationships between location of collector and trunk
lines and subdivision or building activity could not be done; nor
could an analysis of financing be made.
Limited data on the approximate location and year of the installation
of collector lines (aggregated by assessment district) was available
only for the South Tahoe PUD. However, inspection of subdivision
activity in STPUD's service area showed that the subdivision pattern
was already established by 1960 when septic tanks were still the pre-
dominant wastewater disposal system.
As discussed in section VI, cost accounting for the development of
Tahoe Basin sewerage systems has been very inconsistent. In addi-
tion, information on the effect of holding costs on property owners
which would be likely to influence individual development decisions
has proved impracticable to collect.
The total costs to an individual owner of a subdivided lot for
mandatory sewerage system installation would include the following:
charges for sewerage district annexation; property tax rate increases;
rises in assessed valuation since property is more valuable when
sewered; special assessments for collector lines to reach his lotjand
fees for hookup, operation and maintenance of the system. No informa-
tion has been found to determine whether the magnitude of such costs
forced lot owners to develop their property, to increase the intensity
of development, or to sell the property.
No Tahoe Basin study has discussed such holding costs, nor has any
federal agency attempted to assess the impact of these holding costs
when grants for wastewater facilities were approved. Such an analysis
should include a study of the impact of various ways of raising
revenues to support capital construction.
Revenue bonds, in particular, appear to depend on future population
growth to retire them in order to avoid unduly burdening present
property owners. In addition questions of economic equity such as
whether seasonal users and day and overnight visitors pay for a
fair share of the cost of wastewater treatment have not been analyzed
(or even discussed) in any existing Tahoe Basin studies.
The actual influence of local government land use plans on sewerage
district plans is not clear. A review of major wastewater feasibility
and project reports published prior to 1970 showed MO detailed re-
ference to locally adopted land use plans. No evidence has been
found in treatment plant feasibility studies to show that there was
any cooperation with county land use planners in their preparation.
Sewerage districts, of course, are not by law required to coordinate
their planning efforts with those of any other agencies or juris-
dictional levels.
76
-------
Sewerage District decisions were however substantially influenced by
the private sector. The expansion of gaming appears to have been
contingent upon the availability of sewage treatment. As noted by
South Tahoe PUD engineering consultants; "... it had long been
established that the neighboring gaming establishments in Douglas
County were in dire need of an adequate sewerage system!1 (Brown and
Caldwell, 1959, p. 6) To provide this service, "a district was formed
(Douglas County SID #1) on the Nevada side to permit the gaming casinos
to contract with the South Tahoe Public Utility District for treatment
and disposal of their sewage." (California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, 1970b) This contract ended in 1968 when the district
began operating its own facilities.
These activities indicate that the construction of sewage treatment
facilities was an acknowledged precondition for the growth of gaming
casinos at the South Shore. The significance of this precondition
cannot be underestimated since by 1970 one-third of the total visitor
days in the Tahoe Basin were directly attributable to gaming (Econ-
omic Research Associates, 1971).
Special districts are governmental agencies with limited powers. Under
state law they may condemn land, enter into contracts, levy certain
taxes and assessments and sell bonds. Since 1963 in California the
formation and expansion of such districts has been subject in each
county to the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo). (California Government Code sec. 54773, et seq.) The central
task of a LAFCo is to limit the number of new districts formed and to
encourage districts to expand into contiguous areas rather than leaving
pockets of skipped-over territory. (See Appendix B for discussion of
special district statutes.)
LAFCo officials have interpreted their enabling legislation which states
that annexations should be logical and orderly to mean that an annexa-
tion to an existing district is preferable to the creation of a new
district. Additionally the Federal Enforcement Conference (USFWPCA,
1966) specifically required that the districts annex all developable
land, as part of mandated sewering of the basin. This they have done,
mostly since 1966 (Table VI - 15). The net result of these events
has been the rapid expansion of both service area and sewage treatment
capacities.
The Critical Relationship Between Wastewater Treatment and Water Supply
Water supply and distribution is potentially the most limiting factor
to future urbanized development at Lake Tahoe. The availability of
domestic water supply is intrinsically connected to current wastewater
treatment technology. This relationship deserves special attention
at Lake Tahoe where existing and planned sewage export will remove
large amounts of domestic water from the Basin. This Basin contains
77
-------
64 watersheds which drain into Lake Tahoe, and the lake in turn is
the source of the lower Truckee River. This bi-state river has long
been deficient in supplying downstream demand (Brown and Caldwell,
1959, p. 24).
A quantitative analysis of the relationships between water supply and
land use patterns is beyond the scope of this research. In addition,
there appears to be no current or historic data available on water sys-
tem flows or capacities to make such an analysis possible. The basin-
wide description of water supply and distribution in a recent TRPA
draft study, Lake Tahoe Water, Wastewater & Drainage prepared by
Walters Engineering follows in its entirety:
There are currently 82 separate water purveyors in the Lake
Tahoe Basin of which some have multiple isolated water sys-
tems . . . The size of water systems in the Lake Tahoe Basin
vary from two to 2300 customers. All but a few of the present
water distribution systems are inadequate, resulting in
inadequate domestic service and fire protection. Such
inadequacies have negative impact with respect to public
health, esthetics and in the form of higher fire insurance
rates (Walters,1973, unpaged).
There have been numerous studies dealing with the question of sufficien-
cy of water supply and distribution. As early as 1948 California and
Nevada investigated the impact of population growth in the basin on
the amount of water flowing from the lake which was available to down-
stream users (California Department of Public Works, 1949; 1949a).
The consensus of opinion in these reports indicates that increased
water use due to population growth would cause only minor impacts on
the total amount of water in the Basin's watersheds. This information
was based on lower than present-day estimates of per capita water use
(50 gallons per capita per day /(TPDjO; plus the assumption that 50% of
the water used would be returned" for ground water recharge through
septic tanks, and through the irrigation of lawns and golf courses.
In addition, extensive clearing of vegetation was expected to eliminate
some existing water consumption due to transpiration losses. The net
water use utilized in the 1948 studies was 25 gallons per capita
per day. Given this low per capita water use and the assumption that
basin populationvould double in 25 years to approximately 60,000 peak
summer residents, the study concluded that water supply was more than
adequate for both Basin and downstream users.
In 1955 the California and Nevada legislatures created a "California-
Nevada Interstate Compact Commission" to formulate an interstate com-
pact for regulating water use intte bi-state Truckee, Carson and Walker
River Basins. Studies on water use and hydrology prepared for the
78
-------
commission concluded that there was insufficient water to meet all
probable future demands within the basins. This conclusion led to the
declaration of the river basins (including the Tahoe Basin) as water
deficient areas.
In 1959 another study was undertaken to estimate future water require-
ments of the Lake Tahoe Basin apart from the other basins draining
into the Truckee River (Muth and Banks, 1959). This study was prepared
for the Interstate Compact Commission by the State Engineer of Nevada
and the Director of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).
It assumed a future peak population of 398,000 and predicted a maximum
water consumption of 17,200 acre feet per year and a minimum use of
9,100 acre feet per year. The study also predicted that runoff into
the lake would increase significantly due to urbanization (vegetation
clearing, impervious surfacing, etc.). This increase was estimated to
range from a maximum of 22,000 acre feet to a minimum of 11,900 acre
feet. When these data were combined, it was concluded that there would
be no depletion of the inflow to the lake, assuming a peak population
of 398,000. In fact, an increase in runoff to the lake was predicted
which would exceed the increased water use of future populations.
Again, intense urban development of the basin was considered to have
little impact on the total basin water budget.
Water diversions in the Tahoe Basin are now limited to a maximum of
34,000 acre feet per year; 23,000 acre feet to California and 11,000
acre feet to Nevada. The limitation was formulated and discussed in
the early 1960's but not officially agreed on by both states until 1968
(ratified by both states but not yet by Congress). This appears to
indicate the existence of an abundant supply of water considering the
1948 and 1959 DWR studies of projected ultimate water needs. However,
several new factors need to be weighed to estimate future water use
more accurately.
First, there has been a significant increase in average per capita water
use. The estimate of 50 gallons per capita per day (GPD) used in
1948 had increased to 100 in 1959 and increased again to 118 in 1962.
ESI in their "Comprehensive Study" for the LTAC estimated that per
capita water would increase to 140 gallons per day by 1980 (Engineering
Sciences, 1963). Per capita water use for 1972 has been estimated at
140 GPD in California and 193 GPD in Nevada (Walters, 1973);reinforcing
the expected trend toward higher per capita use.
A second factor which influenced the water allocation formula was the
decision to export all sewage effluent from the Basin. The earlier
DWR studies assumed that 50% of the water used in the Basin would be
returned through groundwater recharge. If all effluent were to be
exported out of the Basin no recharge would occur except for water
used to water lawns and golf courses.
79
-------
Third, population projections for the Basin had been revised sharp!v
upward. An influential 1963 study projected a peak day population of
596,000 persons by 2010. This reflected increased occupancy factors
due to year-round recreation including skiing, water sports, and
casinos (Engineering Sciences, Inc., 1963).
Future basin water use has been forecast in many studies, with varied
conclusions. The 1973 study by Walters Engineering for TRPA used popu-
lation projections provided by Economics Research Associates which were
based on assumptions concerning the actualization of the TRPA land use
plan. Each watershed was assigned an ultimate saturation population to
allow projections of future water use. The resulting population capa-
city for the Basin was projected to be 214,280. Then two forecasts
of future water use based on this projection were made, with and without
water conservation measures. Present demand was estimated as well
The totals for each state are indicated in Table VII - 1.
""
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
BASIN
PRESENT
DEMAND
11.1
4.7
15.7
PROJECTED DEMAND
WITHOUT
CONSERVATION MEASURES
34.2
— ' ' — — .
8.8
"••• • — _
43.0
PROJECTED DEKAf
WITH
CONSERVATION MEAS
— .
ie.2
— •
4.5
— — — — — —
22.7
Table VII - i: PRESENT 0972) AND ppWECTED MflT£R
(thousands of acre feet per year)
The still unofficial Bi-State Compact allocates a maximum of 34,000 acr*
feet of water per year to the Basin. California would receive a 23 000
acre foot allocation and Nevada 11,000 acre feet. Clearly water con-
servation measures must be taken if ultimate water use in the Basin
is not to exceed the limit set by the Interstate Water Compact.
The Walters Engineering Study does not spell out the assumptions made
in order to calculate future per capita water use. Water use has con-
sistently increased in the Basin and nationwide as well. The study
does not discuss what water conservation measures should be utilized
nor who would enforce them, nor what impact such measures might have*
on efficient wastewater treatment.
Local and Regional Regulation of Land Use
Until the advent of the TRPA in 1970 Tahoe Basin land use planning was
undertaken by counties and the City of South Lake Tahoe. General plans
zoning and the issuance of subdivision approvals and building permits "
80
-------
were functions carried out by county governments located considerable
distances from the Tahoe Basin (see Figure V - 3). The land use classi-
fications designated by these local plans were not legally binding on
land owners. General plans were used as a broad framework for future
land use and were not required to reflect existing zoning. The future
uses ot land as indicated on general plans were naturally in excess of
actual land uses to allow for growth. Appendix B contains a detailed
discussion of the statutes which define the planning function in
California and Nevada local government.
Land use planning in the Lake Tahoe Basin has been the subject of on-
going controversy during most of the period covered by this research.
Conservation interests continuously sought legislative action to
override the land use decisions of local governments during the 1960's
(Jackson and Pisam, 1973). Public policy questions which dominated
the debate included whether land speculation was encouraged through
a lack of subdivision control, whether major pro-development bias was
evident in general plans, whether marginal lands (steep slopes and
fragile soils) were being approved for development, and whether regional
and/or national public interest in the planning process was being
represented in the local land use planning process (Brandt, 1971;
Bronson, 1971). The formation of the TRPA was expected to bring more
environmentally responsive land use planning to the Lake Tahoe Region
(Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committee, 1967).
The following discussion elaborates on the policy issues delineated
above using subdivision activity as a land use indicator, and evaluates
the effectiveness of local and regional planning and management of
environmental resources in the Tahoe Basin. Subdivision data is the
most consistent, accurate, and reliable land use measure available
since records of zoning and land use district changes are virtually
non-existent. The subdivision data utilized in this report was col-
r^e?a£0mnC2unDy ?ePartments and the TRPA and entered in the UC Santa
Lruz Tahoe Data Bank for purposes of spacial and multivariate analysis.
Subdivision Control
The sheer magnitude of subdivision activity has been a source of ongoing
controversy A total of nearly 50,000 lots have been approved in the
Tahoe Basin (Table VI - 3). Subdivision approvals have far outstripped
the construction of houses in the Basin. Currently there are an
estimated 30,000 vacant lots (Economic Research Associates, 1972a)
This surplus of lots effectively limits the possible use of these
lands to single family housing units.
Another result of excessive subdivision approvals is to delay anv im-
?mn^^fh^eT>0rnt !Se! FIgure IV - 1}' The environmental quality
impacts of the development of the existing 30,000 vacant lots would be
of major proportion. A high percentage of the properties could be
81
-------
built upon since they are included in appropriate use districts but
excluded from land coverage constraints set forth in the Land Use
Ordinance (TRPA 1972a).
When land is made available through planning, zoning and subdivision
approval mechanisms for uses requiring construction, the owners of
that land acquire legally enforceable rights to build. These rights
can only be taken back by the slow and politically difficult process
of making planning and zoning adjustments. This task is not made
easier when land owners with economic interests, sanctioned by the
original planning, zoning and subdivision*approval, attempt to pro-
tect their investment.
Rural counties have historically tended to approve subdivisions without
critical review because the combined tax assessments on the individual
subdivided lots is considerably higher than on the original undivided
parcel. The county tax base can be greatly increased through sub-
division activity without requiring the county to provide public
services.
Another important economic factor in subdivision activity is the market-
ing system. Subdivision promoters in rural areas often work on a large
scale. The cost of market analysis and sales promotion is high; as is
the overhead which is attributable to the fact that few of the home
site buyers are local residents. The development project must be ad-
vertised in distant metropolitan areas. These added costs generally
require the second home subdivision developers to minimize on-site
costs. Since second home sites sell more rapidly than do second homes.
the subdivider is also able to avoid committing capital to a costly
construction operation by limiting promotion to the sale of second home
lots.
The new owner of a subdivided lot essentially has only two approaches
possible for managing his property; at some future date the owner will
either improve or sell the property. The latter choice, often under-
taken with investment in mind, is generally referred to as speculation.
Since there are 30,000 vacant lots in the Basin, it may be assumed that
a considerable portion of the subdivided land is held by land specu-
lators.
Land speculation, by its very nature, removes land from the market. Be-
cause the amount of land available to meet the market demand is very
limited, any alteration in land supply is important. The land speculator
gambles that if his land is withheld from the market long enough the re-
sulting shortage will force the value up to a profitable level.
Although there is insufficient data to determine statistically the Impact
of land speculation on land values at Lake Tahoe it is important to note
that the Tahoe Basin is considered a Hgh land cost area in spite of
82
-------
30,000 vacant lots. The following excerpt from the 1971 TRPA Housina
Study postulates the causes of high land costs: "ousing
1. The relative scarcity of usable, accessible, buildable and
serviceable properties.
2. The preponderance of public ownership in the Basin.
3. The "speculative" character of land investors who con-
trol some key parcels.
4. The additional cost burden, imputed to land for "special
assessments" (mostly sewers) adding to land costs.
Several examples will suffice:
1. Lots in the Tahoe Sierra Tract, filed in 1950-51,
originally sold for $400-$500. By 1960 they were
priced at $2500-$3000; today they average about $5000.
2. Lots in the Barton Tract (City of South Lake Tahoe) at
the time of origin (1953) sold for about $1000; in 1960
they were priced at $3000. They are now approximately
$6000.
3. A single family, lake front lot at Incline Village sold
tor $17,500 in 1960. They are now selling at $85,000.
4. Single family developed residential lots, practically
anywhere in the Basin, now retail for approximately $1
per square foot. (Smith, 1971, p. 35)
Another common result of widespread land speculation is the creation
OT pressure on local government to rezone additional increments of
l?nln?r U1thn PurP°fes. Land is usually sold on an option basis con-
tingent on the buyer's ability to secure a favorable (i.e., urban)
zone change. (The above discussion on speculation impacts is based on
19771 intervlew "1th J°nn Bihary, real estate appraiser, July
Lake Tahoe is especially vulnerable to this phenomenon because the
supply of land is limited and the demand for subdivided lots is greater
than the demand for lots with structures. The recent trend toward more
intensive land uses (e.g. condominiums), while areas remain vacant which
had been subdivided several years previously, may be a consequence of
n*ll'r*n ' hf; A y l?nd.US? P°!icy Permitting these more intensive
uses can be traced directly to local government's earlier planning de-
cisions which sanctioned speculative holdings, thereby placing develop-
ment pressure on the remaining land. H»«.my ueveiop
83
-------
In 1970 the disparity between actual subdivided land and land indicated
for development on the county general land use plans was in excess of
25,000 acres or roughly 39 square miles (see Table VII - 2). This
disparity may be considered evidence of a pro-development bias. These
plans, which show an excessive amount of acreage available for housing
provided the conceptual pattern for all land development through 1971
COUNTY
El Dorado
Placer
Douglas
Washoe
TOTAL
APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
10,750
6,910
2,040
3,490
22.190
INTERIM PLAN
AVAILABLE FOR
SUBDIVISION
14,730
22,800
5.310
4,880
47,720
EXCESS
ACRES
3.980
16,890
3,270
1,390
25,530
40 sq. ml .
Table VII - 2; COMPARISON OF APPROVED SUBDIVISION ACREAGE AND GENERAL
PLAN (INTERIM PLAN) ACREAGE (1970).
Source: Hand counted (July 1973) subdivision approvals matched with
TRPA V-400' scale maps (1970) and the TRPA Interim Plan
1970 as compiled.In U.C. Santa Cruz Data Bank.
The Transition from Local to Regional Planning
The apparent inability of local government to regulate private land
uses consistent with conserving the region's high scenic values has been
documented above. This concern, though, is perhaps best demonstrated
by the intense interest in coordinated, Basin-wide planning which has
existed since the mid-fifties at Lake Tahoe, A summary of this interest
and a discussion of the difficult transition from local to regional
planning follows. (This discussion is developed primarily from
Appendix A. Except where noted, the source is "Lake Tahoe," the
newsletter of the Lake Tahoe Area Council).
The need for a regional approach to land use was recognized in the late
1950's. In 1958 a Tri-County Planning Commission was formed in Nevada
and a Bi-County Planning Commission in California. These advisory com
missions became the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission (TRPC) in 1960
Funds, staff, and formal powers were insufficient to actively pursue a
substantial planning program. In the early 1960's a private grant pro-
vided funding for the preparation of a "1980 Regional Plan," developed
by the San Francisco Bay Area firm of Wilsey, Ham and Blair (Wilsey
Mann, 1964). This plan was adopted by the TRPC and various county '
84
-------
planning commissions in 1964. However the Boards of Supervisors of
the Tahoe Basin counties did not adopt the 1980 Plan and land use regu-
lation continued under the provisions within county general plans.
California and Nevada became active in the Tahoe Basin land use issue
in 1964, through the creation of a Joint Study Committee charged with
the responsibility of investigating the feasibility of regional govern-
ment in the Tahoe Basin. The Committee's report, completed in 1967,
recommended a Bi-State Regional Agency with extensive land use control
authority. Considerably weaker versions of the proposed Bi-State
Agency were approved by California in 1967, and by Nevada a year later.
In 1969 the Bi-State Planning Compact was signed by.Congress, creating
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).
The TRPA convened its first meeting in April, 1970, as the staff
and governing body began preparation of a regional plan. Adoption of
an interim regional plan within ninety days of the initial convening
of the TRPA was mandated by the compact. As a result of severe time
pressures and data gathering constraints, an unaltered composite of
the existing local general plan maps was presented and adopted. This
interim plan became the basis for all TRPA approvals of land develop-
ment during the following two years.
Lands designated on the interim plan for urban, semi-urban and rural
estate development totaled nearly 48,000 acres or roughly 75 square
miles (staff calculations, from TRPA Interim Plan, 1970). Using popu-
lation density figures developed for TRPA use districts (TRPA General
Plan, 1971) the population potential of the interim plan is calculated
to be over 395,000 persons, based on assumed 80% build-out and 80%
occupancy rates (see Table VII - 3).
LAND USE CATEGORIES
...
Rural Estates
Residential Estates
Low Residential
Medium Residential
High Residential
Tourist Commercial
Limited ft Local Coin.
General Commercial
TOTAL
ACRES
11,110
4,210
24,420
1,630
1,980
1,830
670
1.290
47,140
PERSONS/
ACRE
.5
5
10.5
20
37.5
60
30
SO
POPULATION
5.550
21.050
256.410
32,600
74,250
109.800
20,100
64,500
,584,260
9 SOX BUILD OUT
SOX OCCUPANCY
3,552
1 3,472
'.64,102
20,864
47,520
70,272
'12,864
41 .280
373,926
Table VII - 3: INTERIM PLAN LAND USE ACREAGE POPULATION CAPACITY
Source: TRPA Interim Plan; computations fron UCSC Tahoe Data Bank
85
-------
It is clear that major environmental degradation was likely to occur
from the impacts of residential and commercial construction, expanded
highway networks, enlarged sewage disposal systems, etc., needed to
support and service this large population. The TRPA staff recognized
the potential impact of these previous planning commitments, although
a clear environmental planning strategy was not formulated (Pepper,
1971).
The TRPA staff clashed repeatedly with governing body members, and
members of the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission (APC) (whose membership
included the planning directors of the local governments under TRPA
authority) over approvals of proposed land developments. (U.S. Senate,
1972a; Agena, 1972; and Bronson, 1971.) Local government officials
were understandably concerned that their authority was being undercut
by the TRPA. Conflicts between these two levels of government were
common.
Permit review occupied the majority of staff time as the eighteen-
month planning period mandated by the Bi-State Compact slowly elapsed.
Although a series of citizen technical committee reports was prepared
(TRPA, 1971; 1971n, inclusive), the TRPA staff lacked sufficient per-
sonnel, time, and information to engage in an active planning process
(Pepper, 1972).
In 1970 the U.S. Forest Service established a special Tahoe Basin
Planning Team to develop plans and policies for the public lands in
the basin. This team subsequently provided the environmental research
support for preparation of the TRPA Plan. Working in conjunction with
a research group in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the
University of California at Berkeley, the USFS team conducted an ex-
tensive analysis of the dynamics of the Tahoe Basin landscape.
As a result of this research, the USFS team was able to define seven
Land Capability Districts, based on the relative tolerance of the land-
scape to absorb land development without sustaining permanent damage.
These districts are primarily defined in terms of the following charac-
teristics of the landscape: slope, soil erosion, runoff, drainage
density, revegetation potential, flooding, wildlife, sedimentation
and water quality (U.S. Forest Service, 1972).
Conservation groups made several unsuccessful attempts to secure a
development moratorium on all Basin lands during the planning period.
However the only moratorium envoked was a HUD-FHA moratorium on all FHA
mortgage insurance activity in the Tahoe Basin.
The APC and the TRPA governing body continued to give wholesale approval
to land development proposals over the constant objections of conserva-
tion-minded members of the respective bodies (Brandt, 1971; Bronson,
1971). In addition, hundreds of units were approved in spite of nega-
tive TRPA staff recommendations which were based on analysis of slope
and soil conditions. (Pepper, 1971).
86
-------
The Bi-State Compact required that public hearings on the regional
plan be held at the end of the eighteen-month planning period. In
response to this legislative mandate, the TRPA regional plan was pre-
sented in June of 1971. This plan, usually referred to as the "staff
plan," was developed by assigning specific land uses and a persons-
per-acre factor to the USFS designated Land Capability Districts.
This process produced an unusual land use plan based wholly on ecologi-
cal factors and yielded a theoretical maximum basin population of
136,000 persons.
Unfortunately, the staff plan failed to provide for existing develop-
ment or paper subdivisions! These additional land uses would have
allowed a potential population of about 300,000 persons, if the same
persons-per-acre factor were used. Current estimates of peak-day
populations were also excluded from population calculations.
Conservationists were naturally elated at the prospect of a strong,
environmentally based plan which included the returning of large areas
of existing development to a natural state.
Amidst growing controversy, however, political realities prevailed and
the "staff plan" was shelved by the governing body in early July. The
TRPA then appointed an ARC Subcommittee to prepare a politically fea-
sible regional plan within two months. This subcommittee was composed
of the six local planning directors whose planning authority within
the Tahoe Basin had previously been pre-empted by the TRPA.
Meanwhile, a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation draft study released in
August recommended sweeping changes in the structure of the TRPA in
order to realize the environmental goals mandated by the legislation
(Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1971). The controversial report was
never made public, and the TRPA continued on schedule toward plan
adoption.
Extensive hearings on the completed APC subcommittee plan were held in
September and October 1971. Conservationist pressures eventually con-
vinced the APC and the TRPA governing body that the regional plan
would not meet the legislative mandate unless land use was regulated
on the basis of the USFS Land Capability Districts.
The result was a two-map plan; with permitted land uses determined
by the APC subcommittee plan and the use intensity (expressed as a
percentage of land coverage) regulated by the seven previously desig-
nated land capability districts (U.S. Forest Service, 1972). Adoption
of this unique two-map plan was subsequently delayed by the Nevada
TRPA members who requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed plan (see Section IVj Figure IV - 1). •
87
-------
TRPA Land Use Controls
The TRPA Plan, as adopted December 1971, is implemented through a
land use ordinance enacted February 1972 (TRPA 1972a). This ordinance
establishes regional land use districts and land capability districts-
provides for both population density controls and land coverage linri-'
tations; and includes procedures for the issuance of permits and non-
conforming uses.
It is not surprising that a concept of land capability districts be-
came the environmental quality dimension of the plan. The enabling
legislation had charged the agency with the preparation of "regional
plan of resource conservation and orderly development (and) to
exercise effective environmental controls" (U.S. Congress, 1969).
The land capability districts were matched in the ordinance with cor-
responding land coverage limitations on areas with high suscepti-
bility to development disturbances. The relative distribution of
these districts and the percentage of land coverage permitted is
delineated in Table VII - 4 (TRPA 1972a, p. 12).
LAND CAPABILITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DEVELOPMENT
RIQ?
high
',
low
DISTRIBUTION IN LAKE TAHOE BASIN (ACRES)
TOTAL BASIN
148,750
4,770
12,900
7,050
16,730
8,800
3,030
74X
2X
6X
-------
permitted for commercial development. Tourist commercial land uses
are permitted 35 to 50% land coverage and general commercial land uses
may have up to 70% coverage; these provisions apply to all land
designated for commercial uses regardless of the land capability.
The implications of these exceptions are clear; the TRPA Plan, gen-
erally thought to provide substantial environmental controls, merely
places highly restrictive land coverage limitations only on new
residential subdivisions while permitting and encouraging higher inten-
sity uses in existing and new commercial areas, and in medium and
high density residential districts that contain existing subdivided
lots.
Adoption of the TRPA General Plan resulted in major incongruences with
previous land use decisions (Pepper, 1972). A number of remote and
unbuilt-upon subdivisions were reclassified for General Forest uses.
This designation prohibited the construction of residential units.
Many existing subdivisions with varying degrees of residential buildout
were placed within very restrictive land capability districts.
However, the most dramatic changes were in the reductions of acreages
within high use potential districts as delineated on the existing
County General Plans (TRPA Interim Plan). Table VIj-s shows acreages
of specific land use district removed from each county allocation in
the TRPA Plan. Of note is the 46% reduction of urban uses, primarily
in residential categories.
COUNTIES (ACRES)
CATEGORIES
RURAL ESTATE • \
7
RES. ESTATE OVER 1 — "•
LOW RES10. 1-3 DW/AC
MED. RESID. 4-ft DW/AC
H! RES 10. 8-15 EM/AC
TOURIST COMMTPriAL
LIMITED OR LOCAL COMM.-t
GENERAL COMMERCIAL 1
SERVICE INDUSTRY
COUNTY TOTALS
PLACER
-12,650
-1,230
+ 140
-160
-30
-490
+ 190
-14,230
U DORADO
-20
-4,070
+ 420
+ 490
-100
+ 410
+ 100
-2,770
DOUGLAS
-1,240
-500
-610
+ 110
-250
•70
-40
-2.600
WASHOE 1 TOTALS
-840
-460
+ 90
-150
-110
-80
+ 80
-1.470
-14,750
-6,260
-40
+ 290
-490
-230
+330
-21,070
Table VII - 5: LAND USE DISTRICT ACREAGE NET CHANGES UNDER TRPA PLAN •- TALLY BY COUNTY
Source: TRPA Interim Plan; Computations fron MC.SC Tat Data Bank
89
-------
Although the California counties have a considerably greater endowment
of high capability lands than those in Nevada, the acreage reductions
were also of major proportion. Of the 18,390 acres removed from high
capability uses, some 13,780 acres (75%) were in California. El
Dorado County and the City of South Lake Tahoe had 4650 and 3690 acres
removed respectively. Also the major commercial area acreage reduc-
tions were made on the California side, pointing up the reluctance of
the Nevada interests to compromise commercial and gaming interests.
TRPA Concern for Wastewater Management
A similar comparison can be made using wastewater management districts
as the units of observation (Table VII -6 ). Nearly 12,000 acres
within sewerage districts have been removed from urban uses by the TRPA
Plan. As expected, California districts experienced the greatest
reductions.
CATEGORIES
RURAL ESTATE — •
RES. ESTATE OVER 1 '~
LOW RESIO. 1-3 DM/AC
MED. RESID. 4-8 DU/AC
HI RESIO, 8-15 DW/AC
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
LIMITED OR LOCAL COMM.— ,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL- !~"
SERVICE INDUSTRY
DISTRICT TOTALS
NTPUD
-290
-280
+50
-100
-20
+60
+10
-570
TCPUD
-2.900
-1,940
»100
-250
-90
-290
+50
-5.320
STPUD
-10
-2,640
+410
+700
-80
+410
+100
-1,110
IVGIO
.:880
-320
+110
-140
-100
+20
+80
-1,230
us i cm
CB
-Q ,
-70
-so
0
+10
-40
0
-150
TD.RH.K.EP
& 0 GID
-1,150
' +470
-530
+40
-210
-70
-40
-2.430
TOTALS
-5.230
-5,650
+ 140
+250
-500
+ 130
+200
-10.660
Table VII - 6: LAND USE DISTRICT ACREAGE NET CHANGES UNDER TRPA PLAN —
TALLY BY HASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Source: TRPA Interim Plan; Computations form UCSC Tahoe Data Bank
During the hearings on the proposed TRPA Plan, a number of objections
were voiced by various special districts. It was claimed that the
plan effectively limited the growth of service areas; thereby reducing
revenues and producing fiscal problems for the districts. However,
a study of the economic impact of the TRPA Plan on special districts
did indicate that the effects of the plan itself would produce few
fiscal problems (Baxter, McDonald 1971).
90
-------
Sewage disposal systems were not a central consideration in the develop-
ment of the 1971 TRPA Plan. Reports and studies prepared for the
agency in the areas of wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
are too generalized and fail to provide sufficient information for
region-wide decision making.
The 1971 TRPA Wastewater Committee Report consists mainly of assorted,
one-time and non-parallel statistics as reported by sewerage districts
(TRPA, 1971m). The "Lake Tahoe Water, Wastewater and Drainage,"
(HUD-701 Draft Study) (Walters Engineering, 1973) also fails to provide
an information base to assist the TRPA in coordinating land use and
wastewater management. Nor are the conclusions and recommendations
reached in the study supported by strong quantitative data. Unless
the final report is a substantial improvement over the draft study,
the TRPA will continue to conduct its planning program without an
understanding of the influence and impact of wastewater management in
the Basin.
91
-------
SECTION VIII
OVERVIEW AND PROSPECT
The complexity inherent in the research topic required a constant shift in
the analysis between general contextual factors and specific relationships.
Section IV and V addressed the general considerations of environmental
quality, land use and development, and wastewater management in the context
of the Lake Tahoe Basin. In Secion VI specific quantitative and structural
relationships were analyzed, and Section VII presented an analysis and
evaluation of the wide range of public policies contributing to the evo-
lution of the land use pattern in the Tahoe Basin.
The purpose of this final section is twofold: first, to provide an over-
view of the research findings through the presentation of a descriptive
model of the land development process in the Tahoe Basin; and second, to
discuss briefly the outlook for the Basin as built upon inferences from
the model.
Descriptive Model
Conceptual Framework
The development of the descriptive model incorporates research findings
from Sections VI and VII and two previously developed models: the
Environmental Quality Land Use - Wastewater Management model illustrated
in Figure III - 1 (page 8 )i and tne Conceptual Model of the Land Develop-
ment Process shown in Figure V - 6 (page 28).
Since major structural changes have occurred in the land development pro-
cess in the Basin, it is necessary to indicate important changes in the
descriptive model to encompass the three periods of urbanization in the
Tahoe Basin identified and discussed under Development Periods in Section
V (see Table V - 1, page 30 ).
Although these periods delineate distinct stages in the evolution of the
land development process in the Basin, it is the factors which influenced
the transitions from one period to the next which are of primary impor-
tance in understanding the dynamics of the process.
Components
The Conceptual Model developed in Section V consisted of six primary
elements: demand, activities, land use control, infrastructure, physical
land development, and environmental change. Each of these elements is
further defined by a set of discrete measures which are identified in
Table VIII - 1. '
92
-------
ELEMENT
MEASURES
(1) Demand
(2) Activities
(3) Land Use
Control
(4) Infrastructure
Development
(5) Land
Development
(6) Environmental
Change
Permanent Peculation
Seasonal Population
Transient Population
Outdoor Recreation
Land Subdivision and Development
Legalized Gaming
Other Commercial Tourism
Land Subdivision
Residential Development
Commercial Development
Outdoor Recreation Facilities
Development
Uastewater Management
Transportation
Water Supply
Energy
Single Family Residential
Multiole Family Residential
Motel/Hotel Commercial
1-Jater Pollution
Scenic Degradation
Erosion-Sedimentation
Air Pollution
Table VIII - 1: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL ELEMENTS AND MEASURES
93
-------
Structure
Since the Conceptual Model provides the basic structure for the descrip-
tive model, it is repeated below as Figure VIII - 1 for ease of reference.
(3)
PUBLIC PLANNING
AND LAND USE
CONTROL SYSTEM
. . Hjure VIII - 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1950-1972
Dashed lines Indicate negative feedback
The detailed model structure was derived from the relationships establish-
ed in Section VI and VII, thus providing the specificity necessary to
expand and modify the relationships initially hypothesized in the Con-
ceptual Model.
Period One: 1950-1959
All the relationships indicated in the initial period, 1950-1959 (Figure
VIII - 2), are self-reinforcing, i.e., they display positive feedback
and therefore constituted a development-sustaining process. None of the
elements are linked through self-correcting mechanisms (negative feed-
back).
94
-------
CALIFORNIA
DISPOSABLE
INCOME
(3) LOCAL LAND
USE COHTROL
Important elements and relationships in the pre-sewage treatment
facilities period are as follows:
(a) land development utilization of septic tanks for wastewater
disposal;
(b) water pollution resulting from septic seepage into Lake Tahoe;
and
(c) lack of strong local land use control
Figure VIII - 2: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL — PERIOD ONE: 1950-1959
95
-------
In the Tahoe Basin land development process, when environmental quality
thresholds were approached, negative feedback loops were generated through
a combination of internal and external influences. Subsequent stages of
the model include these corrective feedback loops. (Broken lines are
used to indicate self-correcting conditions; arrows indicate causal re-
lationships, although not all are empirically tested.)
Two negative feedback loops were instrumental in the transition from
period one to period two (Figure VIII- 3). First, the adverse effects
of septic water pollution on residents and on tourism (especially out-
door recreation) generated a loop between environmental change and demand,
and subsequently to federal and state policies, programs, and grants.
Second, the size of gaming facilities and other commercial tourist estab-
lishments was clearly limited by septic tank disposal capacities. A
negative loop from land development (commercial) to infrastructure (waste-
water) resulted as commercial interests sought to influence the develop-
ment of wastewater management facilities.
These_feedback loops (shown in Figure VIII - 3) were central to the
transition between periods one and two. (Two conventions are used to
show changes in figures illustrating model periods and transitions:
important changes in relationships are indicated by heavier lines in the
figure in which they first appear; elements that are primarily involved
in the transition are shaded.)
Period Two: 1960-1969
Figure VIII - 4 depicts the model for this period. Major expansion of
wastewater facilities occurred in these years, permitting the growth of
multiple-family residential and commercial-tourism developments. The
provision of sewage treatment facilities also led to a substantial in-
crease in the density of single family residential development.
These land use changes in turn produced undesired changes in environ-
mental conditions; namely increased erosion, sedimentation and con-
sequent turbidity of Lake Tahoe waters, and scenic degradation resulting
from vegetation clearing. Furthermore these adverse changes were a
potential threat to the tourism and recreation-based economy. Figure VIII-
5 illustrates the resulting negative feedback loop generated between
environmental change and demand, and subsequently between demand and
federal and state policies, programs, and grants. It was this environ-
mental quality feedback loop which led to the transition from local to
regional land use control through the creation of the TRPA.
Period Three: 1970-Present
Although the formation period of the TRPA spans half a decade, 1970
marks the actual inception of regional land use planning and control in
96
-------
r~ "
CALIFORNIA * >
•DISPOSABLE 1
INCOME
;
u .
^
t
_i_-
(1) DEMAND
VISITOR
POPULATION
1
1
1
(e)ENVlROmCIITA
CHANGE
SCENIC
DEGRADATION
WATER
POLLUTION
•
(
b)
r
i
L 1
|
j
L
NEVADA
WHIG
1
+
+
f
. ^Kiim
^FEDERAL .
, (2*)
~! OUTDOOR
RECREATION
1
LAND
,
• STATE AND FEDERAL
- WASTEMATER MANAGEMENT
^POLICY i GRANTS -
•L (
") DEVELOPERS
LOCAL PUBLIC
J REVENUE BASE
^|
•
4
FEDERAL
LANDS
» +
v
+.1+1
SINGLE
FAMILY
COWERCIAL
HOTEL/
HOTEL
(5) LAND
DEVELOPMENT
(o' WASTEVWTER -
"" ~™ -~ "~ SEPTIC TANKS.
WATER SUPPLY
4 AND PCWER
TRANSPORTATION
(4) INFRASTRUCTURE
.
RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISIONS
TOURIST L
.CWWERCIAL s
(J) LOCAL LAND
USE CONTROL
Important elements and relationships in this transition period are as
follows:
(a) potential negative impact of water pollution on demand and
visitor days;
(b) influence of water pollution on state and federal water
pollution control programs; and
(c) development constraints (especially on commercial and gaming
facilities) of septic tank disposal capacities.
Figure VIII - 3: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL -- TRANSITION: PERIOD ONE PERIOD TWO
97
-------
STATE AND FEDERAL
WASTEUATER MANAGEMENT
POLICY t GRANTS
Significant changes in both elements and relationships occurring during
this period (defined by the provision of major wastewater treatment
facilities) include:
(a) shift from septic tank disposal to sewerage treatment systems;
(b) growth in multi-family residential use;
(c) impact of land development on water quality (erosion and
sedimentation)
(d) influence of land development growth on transportation; and
(e) impact of increased transportation on air quality.
Figure VIII - 4: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL -- PERIOD TWO: 1960-1969
98
-------
(b)
T
ESTATE AND'.'''.-^
.£ GOVERNMENT ' jj>f
AND FEDERAL
>5 CREATION OF
*" -'.-&f;' :*'••.
Important elements and relationships in the second transition period
are as follows:
(a) potential negative impact of adverse environmental changes
on demand and visitor days; and
(b) influence of adverse environmental changes on State and Federal
governments resulting in creation of TRFA.
Figure VIII - 5: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL -- TRANSITION: PERIOD TWO PERIOD THREE
99
-------
the Basin. Figure VIII - 6 illustrates the state of the model at the
start of period three. However, it is too early to determine the nature
of the Agency's influence on other elements and relationships in the
model, due to the relatively short period of time since the formation of
the TRPA.
Prospect
Our knowledge of the future is extremely limited; accurate forecasts,
projections, and predictions are difficult even for simple phenomena.
In cases where social, economic, political and environmental factors are
in constant interplay, accurate prediction of future change is extremely
rare.
The uneven quality of research data and the consequent limitations of the
statistical analysis precluded the development of a simple predictive
method set forth as a research aim. However the dynamics of the land
development process delineated by the descriptive model suggest that major
changes in the process are primarily a result of shifts in public policy.
Therefore this discussion on the prospect for the Lake Tahoe Basin is
based on possible changes in selected public policies. Potential changes
in the land development process will be described by means of brief
scenarios. These scenarios are meant to serve only as examples, and as
such do not provide a complete range of possible futures.
Existing public agency activities and responsibilities in the planning
and management of the Lake Tahoe Basin suggest seven policy areas which
have a direct relationship to the land development process: wastewater
management, storm runoff, water supply, transportation, energy, land use
control and public recreation. The likely impacts of hypothetical poli-
cies are discussed for each of these areas. As such, the discussion
serves to illustrate potential changes, to determine their probable
occurrence. In addition, the relationships among the hypothetical
policies are not discussed, although this suggests numerous possibilities.
Wastewater Management
Hypothetical Policy: Increase wastewater treatment capacities of exist-
ing facilities within the Tahoe Basin.
Regardless of the basis for expansion, any additional capacity would very
likely produce an adverse impact on the land use pattern designated on
the TRPA Plan, particularly in terms of pressure to expand the urbaniza-
tion limits onto lands in high-capability districts but zoned only for
general forest uses. Conflicts of this nature have already been identi-
fied in an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for a proposed TTSA
project. In addition, increased facility capacity would create an in-
centive to increase land use intensity, with the resulting pressure to
increase land use densities permitted under the TRPA Plan.
100
-------
The creation of the TRFfl and the resulting land use controls introduced
the following new elements and relationships:
(a) TRFfl land capability districts control over-intensity of land
development;
(b) TRffl land use district regulation of land uses; and
(c) changes in other relationships are presently indeterminate as
the TRPA influence is still an unknown quantity (these relation-
ships are indicated by question marks (?) ).
Figure VIII - 6: DESCRIPTIVE MODEL — PERIOD THREE: 1970-PRESENT
101
-------
Storm Runoff Management
Hypothetical Policy: Incorporate a storm drain system into the waste-
water management facilities, requiring a substantial expansion of
treatment and export facilities.
Any additional wastewater capacity, regardless of the purpose and merits
of facility expansion, would create the land use pressures noted above.
Furthermore, if the problems of erosion-sedimentation-eutrophication were
effectively removed by channeling surface runoff through the wastewater
treatment and export systems, the TRPA Land Capability District controls
might be considered redundant as increased use intensities could be
rationalized. If this were to occur, new controls would be required to
address the environmental quality problems resulting from increased in-
tensity of land use.
Although no research conclusions were reached on the influence of the
holding costs on undeveloped but subdivided land in the Tahoe Basin,
additional assessments for the treatment of storm runoff might well lead
to sizeable economic consequences for land owners and special districts.
Water Supply
Hypothetical Policy: Reduction in Bi-State Water Compact allocations.
Water supply and distribution is potentially the most limiting factor in
terms of future development in the Tahoe Basin. Any sizeable reduction
in the water supply available for the operation of wastewater management
facilities would have a profound influence on the form and spatial dis-
tribution of land uses in the Tahoe Basin. Furthermore, the export of
wastewater and storm runoff could have serious effects on the amount of
water flowing from the Lake for use by downstream residents.
Transportation
Hypothetical Policy: Upgrade Highway 50 to freeway standards and capa-
city.
An increase in the capacity of the primary California surface transporta-
tion link to the Basin would effectively remove an acknowledged constraint
to development. Increased access is not an independent causal factor in
the land development process, but rather it provides a vital component.
Any substantial increase in infrastructure capacity has a corresponding
influence on the land development potential.
Energy Use
Hypothetical Policy: Federal or State rationing of automotive fuel.
102
-------
The regional economy is virtually dependent on tourism. Fuel shortages
or prohibitive costs could cause an extended and substantial reduction
in visitor days resulting in serious economic problems. Furthermore,
if higher energy costs were to reduce projected urban growth in the
Basin, special districts dependent on revenue bonds could encounter
fiscal difficulty.
Land Use Control
The effectiveness of the TRPA is presently under challenge from two
directions: those seeking to weaken substantially the Agency's land
use control mechanisms, and those who claim the present controls are
inadequate to meet the mandate of the Bi-State Planning Compact. The
course will ultimately reconcile these opposing challenges, but decisions
tending toward one extreme or the other would have a strong influence on
the dynamics of land development.
Hypothetical Policy: Court ordered removal of Land Capability District
land coverage controls.
Without the land capability constraints set forth in the TRPA Land Use
Ordinance environmental problems associated with hydrology'and vegeta-
tion could not be effectively controlled.
Hypothetical Policy: Court ordered stronger TRPA Land Capability Con-
trols.
This would lead to tighter land use controls with a corresponding reduc-
tion in the population capacity of the TRPA Plan. The land development
process would likely undergo two substantial changes under this policy.
First, land costs would increase dramatically if the supply of land
potentially available for development were significantly reduced thus
raising serious equity questions; second, a re-distribution of taxes
and special assessments would be required to sustain the existing level
of public service investments. Landholders now unable to develop their
properties would not be willing to pay taxes and assessments for ser-
vices they could never utilize. Unless corresponding restitution poli-
cies were included to address the equity questions arising from this
land use policy, environmental quality would be achieved at the
social costs of forcing out low and middle income home owners. Service
employees whose rent would be adjusted to cover readjusted taxes and
assessment might be forced out of the Basin as well.
Recreation
Hypothetical Policy: Public lands in the Tahoe Basin developed to a
maximum recreation potential.
If federal and state agencies pursued such a policy, the peak day and
seasonal populations would increase tremendously. This population
103
-------
increase would in turn effect all infrastructure systems, public ser-
vices, and commercial land uses, with consequent impacts on environ-
mental quality. An ambitious public recreation policy would clearly
have a direct and sizeable influence on the land development process
in the Tahoe Basin.
Hypothetical Policy: USFS purchases or trades for parcels of land on
which development would not be permitted under the TRPA Plan.
Any substantial reduction of private holdings will tend to increase
development pressures on the remaining lands. Land values will rise
since the land market has diminished in size and because of the larger
open space amenity. Taxes will rise as well since the newly acquired
public lands would be removed from the tax rolls. A higher density of
development on remaining private lands would likely result.
The increased opportunities for recreation on the new public acquisitions
would lead to pressure for more access, more sewage treatment capacity
allocated to USFS lands, and more tourist facilities on private lands.
The net effect might be a public subsidization of open space purchases
which would primarily benefit private landholders in the Basin.
Summary
These scenarios indicate that while there is a potential myriad of inter-
acting public policies to preserve Lake Tahoe, the future quality of
the Tahoe environment is not especially secure. Clearly the role of
*Ee PAf USFS and other federal and state agencies must be to consider
the^roadest possible policy implications of each single purpose
action.
104
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
Agena, Kathleen, "Tahoe," ASPO Newsletter, 38, No. 1, pp 3-16 (1972).
Allen, Morris L., "North Tahoe Agencies Test Disposal in Volcanic
Cinder Cone." The Bulletin. 9. No. 3, pp 31-38 (1973).
Alonso, William, The Quality of Data and The Choice and Design of
Predictive Models. Working Paper 72, University of California
Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 19 pp (1967).
» "Predicting Best with Imperfect Data." Journal of the American
Institute of Planners. 34, pp 248-255 (1968]^
Anon., Federal Reserve Bulletin. 59, No. 6, (1973).
Ayer, John, "Water Quality Control at Lake Tahoe: Dissertation on
Grasshopper Soup," Ecology Law Quarterly. No. 1, (1971).
Bartel Wells Associates, Financing Plan Regional Sewerage Project,
prepared for Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, San Francisco,
California, 49 pp (1973).
Baxter, McDonald and Company, The Use of 1915 Assessment Bonds by El
Dorado County, unpublished memorandum, Berkeley, California (1968).
» Economic Impact of Development Cutbacks on Tahoe Local Agencies,
unpublished, Berkeley, California, (1971).
» Impact of Tahoe Regional Plan Alternatives on the Planning and
Financing of Local Public Facilities and Services, prepared for
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's Advisory Planning Commission
Subcommittee, unpublished, Berkeley, California (1971a).
Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., Social Statistics. McGraw Hill, New York (1960)
Boll ens, John, Special District Governments in the United States.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California (1957).
Bosselman, Fred, and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use
Control, prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality, United
States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1971)
105
-------
Bowden, Gerald, "Opening the Door to Open Space Control ," Pacific
Law Journal . 1,'pp 461-600 (1970).
Brandt, Steven, "What's Going Wrong at Tahoe." Sierra Club Bulletin, 56,
pp 8-11 (1971).
Bronson, William, "It's about Too Late for Lake.Tahoe," Audubon
Magazine. 73. pp 46-62 (1971).
Brown and Caldwell, South Tahoe Sewerage Survey, prepared for South
Tahoe Public Utility District, ban hrancisco, California. 145 pp
(1959).
,«n..th T.hoP Public Utility nistrict Water Works Program, prepared
-Tor South Tahoe Public Utility District, San Francisco, California
(1961).
Rurrn Rnhprt A and Clark D. Henderson, Transportation Planning
A1 ternfttves 1 n the Tahoe Basi n , prepare* for TRPA with the support
of The League to Save Lake lahoe, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Park, California, 117 pp (1971).
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Pacific Southwest Region Lake Tahoe:
Strategies to Save A Lake, San Francisco, California (1971).
. Position Statement" on the Subcommittee Plan, unpublished, San
' Francisco, California, 2 pp (iy/ia).
California Assembly, Committee on Natural .Resources. Planning, and Public
Works, Public Hearing on Regional Planning in Lake Tahoe Basin,
Broc kway, California (Iyb4).
, Pollution of Lak»-T*hn» - A Brief Summary, Staff Report to the
-Assembly Interim Committee on Water, Sacramento, California (1965).
fl»aiyg.ic of raiifnrnia District" Laws, prepared for the use of
-^Assembly Interim Committee on Hun ici pal and County Government
by George H. Murphy, Sacramento, California, 427 pp (1969).
California Department of Finance, California Population 1969.
Population Research Unit, Sacramento, California, 48 pp U9
California Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Annual
Traffic Counts (Census or Volume), Sacramento, California, Tfm^
each year from 1938 to 1972).
California Department of Real Estate, Subdivision Manual, fourth
edition, Sacramento, California (1966).
106
-------
California Department of Water
Water In the' Lake Tahoe
Nevada and California, 30 pp (1949)
__. Report on the Use of Water in thP I *v*
California, Sacramento, r.aMfnrnia (l919g
Water Quality
on the l.seof
_
En9lneers of
Watershed in
wdiersned in
Sacramento, California, 63 pp (1969).
— FFF . Qua1itv I"vest.igation of Lakp Taho0| A
"TTTbrl ut Lahtorma. Nevada, and the Environment
. of Lake Tahoe. A Cooperative
Environmental Protection Agency,
" 1971, Sacramento, California,
oi
__, Cejtral District. Joint Water quality Tnw.cf^^^n of Lake
bacra. CaHfornU.
n - Central Valley Region,
Deve1"lm""t". unpublished!
. Uke Tahoe Water
rontrol Pmin,. Sacr^ento. California
107
-------
California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Lahontan Region, Cont
.Lake Tahoe Water Quality Control Policy Addendum Regarding
Implementation, Sacramento. California (1967a).
, Lake Tahoe Water Quality Problem ~ History and Prospectus,
unpublished, Sacramento, California (1968a).
, Executive Officer's Annual Report to the Board on Status of
Water Quality Control in the Region, Sacramento, California, 44 pp
(1969a).
, Lake Tahoe Hater Quality Control Policy Addendum Regarding
Control' of Siltation, unpublished, Sacramento, California, 3 pp
(1969b).
, A Comprehensive Report on the Disposal of Sewage from the North
.aFoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe City Public Utility
District, prepared by the Placer County Health Department (1970a).
, Lake Tahoe Water Quality Problem - A Status Report, unpublished,
Sacramento, California, 13 pp (1970b).
, Interim Water Quality Control'Plan for the North Lahontan Basiii
6A., Sacramento, California, 37 pp (1971a).
California Resources Agency, Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Sacramento, California,
39 pp (1973).
, Department of Conservation, Division of Soil Conservation,
"""Sedimentation and Erosion in the Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek
Watershed, Sacramento, California (1969).
California Water Quality Control Board, Digest of Sewerage Enabling
Acts, Publication No. 28, Sacramento, California, 67 pp (1964).
, Comprehensive Water Quality^Control Plans — Planning Report
Outline, Sacramento, California (1971).
California Water Resources Control Board, Final Report; Recommended
Changes in Water Quality Control, Sacramento, California (1969).
, Project Report Guideline, Sacramento, California (1971).
, The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (containing 1971
amendments), Sacramento, California (1972).
108
-------
California Water Resources Control Board, Cont.
» The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (containing 1972
amendments). Sacramento. California (1973).
. Division of Planning and Research, Research Needs for Water
Resources Control in California, Publication No. 48, 48 pp (1973a).
California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Regional Interim Plan.
unpublished, South Lake Tahoe, California, 12 pp (1968).
Chapin, F. Stuart, Urban Land Use Planning. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, Illinois J965).
Chase, Gary, Fourteen Thousand Planners, report prepared for the
Planning Commission of the City of South Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe,
California, 51 pp (1967).
Christman, R. F., et al., The Natural Environment; Wastes and Control,
Goodyear Publishing Co., inc., Pacific Palisades, California (1973).
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield, Clair A. Hill and Associates,
Preliminary Design Report on a Tertiary Waste Treatment Plant.
prepared for South Tahoe Public Utilities District, Corvallis, Oregon,
33 pp (1963).
» A Plan to Provide Sewage Treatment and Export Facilities for the
West and North Shore Areas of Lake Tahoe. prepared for South Tahoe
Public Utilities District, Con/all is, Oregon (1971).
» Project Report for Hater Reclamation Plant Improvements.
Prepared for South Tahoe Public Utilities District, Redding,
California, 61 pp (1971a).
» Wastewater Purification at Lake Tahoe. prepared as an information-
al brochure for the South Tahoe Public Utilities District, San
Francisco, California (undated).
Constantini, Edmond,"Lake Tahoe and the Environmental Impulse: A
Political Behavior Perspective," Western Agricultural Economics
Association Proceedings, 44th Annual Meeting, Squaw Valley,
California, pp 255-265 (July 1971).
» The Federal Role in the Future of the Lake Tahoe Basin, prepared
for the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on
Public Works, U.S. Senate, University of California, Davis,
17 pp (1972).
109
-------
Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality. Third Annual
Report! U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 450 pp
(1972).
Environmental Quality. Fourth Annual I Report, U.S. Government
" Printing Office, Washington, D.C., (1973).
Court James E , Charles Goldman, and Norman J. Hyne, "Surface Sediments
in Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology.
42, No. 2, pp 359-3-7 (1972).
Creegan and D ' Angel o, Preliminary Engineering Report engage Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities for Douglas County SID #1 , San
Jose, California (1962).
_ , Report to Douglas County Sewer Improvement District #1. Estimated
~Tuture Flows June-September Averages. San Jose, California, 46 pp
(1962a). -
, Preliminary Engineering Report on Joint Collection, Treatment,
~a?J7 DTIpoTal Facilities to Serve the Douglas county SID #1 and
Rbund'Hil'1 Gib',' prepared for the Board of Directors of the Douglas
County SID fl, San Jose, California, 4 pp (1965).
_ t Sewerage Master Plan - Lake Tahoe Basin. Douglas County. Nevada.
prepared for Board of County Commissioners, San Jose, California,
77 pp (1968).
_ , Report to the Joint Administrative Board - Export Force Main
""Extension". San Jose, California
Davies, J. Clarence, The Politics of Pollution. Pegasus, New York, New
York (1970).
Davis, Raymond G., Regional Government for Lake Tahoe; A Case Study.
Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis,
Environmental Quality Series No. 2, 29 pp (1970).
Detwyler, Thomas R., Man's Impact on Environment, McGraw-Hill, San
Francisco, California (1971).
Dewante, R. H. .Statement Before Pollution Control Subcommittee. U.S.
House of Representatives at South Lake Tahoe. California (May 2, 1966)
Dewante and stowell . Environmental Impact Statement - Joint Sewerage
Facilities ExpansionTroject, prepared for Tahoe City PUD and North
Tahoe PUD, Sacramento, uamornia, 12 pp (1971).
Joint Sewerage Facilities Expansion Project - Project Report.
-preparecTfSrTahoe City Public utilities District and North lanoe
Public Utility District, Sacramento, California, 41 pp (1971a).
110
-------
Dewante and Stowel!, Contd.
_____» Supplementary Data — Dollar Point Lift Station Addition Project.
prepared for North Tahoe Public Utility District, 37 pp (1972).
, Sewer Assessment District No. 7C. Draft— Environmental Impact
Statementt prepared for Tahoe City Public Utility District,
Sacramento, California, 48 pp (1973).
Douglas County, Nevada, Planning Commission. Analysis of the Report
by Brown and Caldwell of the South Tahoe Sewerage Survey, with
Particular Reference to Douglas County (at Lake Tahoe), Douglas
County, Nevada (1959).
, Present and Future Development Plans Potentials of the Kingsbury-
Stateline Portion of Douglas County at Lake Tahoe. Nevada, Douglas
County, Nevada (1959a).
Dyckman, John W., "Planning and Decision Theory," Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 27, pp 335-45 (1961).
, Introduction to Readings in the Theory of Planning; The State
ofPlanning Theory in America, unpublished manuscript, prepared
at the University of Pennyslvania (1963).
Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams, Recommendations for the Establishing
of a Recreation Master PlarTqf the Tahoe City Public Utility
District, San Francisco. California (1970).
, Recreation Master Plan, 1970-1990, prepared for the Tahoe City
PUD", San Francisco, California (1970a).
, Lake Tahoe Conservation. Recreation and Open Space Elements,
prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, San Francisco,
California, 59 pp (1973).
_s Stateline Subregional Study, prepared for the Tahoe Regional
anning Agency, preliminary draft, San Francisco, California,
105 pp (1973a).
» Tahoe Population Estimates and Projections, San Francisco,
aTifornia (1973b).
, Phase II Regional Comprehensive Planning Program, prepared for
tfie" Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, San Francisco, California
(undated).
Ill
-------
Economic Research Associates. Economic Analysis of Projected Growth
for the Lake Tahoe Basin, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning
Subcommittee, Los Angeles, California, (1971).
, Regional Capital Programming Plans 1973-77, first draft prepared
FoF the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Los Angeles, California,
pages not numbered (1972),
, Regional Housing Element Update, prepared for the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, Los Angeles, California (1972a).
Ehrman, Kenneth A., "Administrative Appeal and Judicial Review of
Property Tax Assessments in California -- The New Look," Hastings
Law Journal, 22. No. 1, (1970).
El Dorado County, Lake Valley Master Plan, prepared by the El Dorado
County Planning Department (1959).
, Six Years of Planning, prepared by the El Dorado County Planning
Department (1963).
, General Plan, prepared by the El Dorado County Planning
Department (1969).
, Recreational Plan, prepared by the El Dorado County Planning
Department (1969a).
El Dorado National Forest Task Force, Sewer Task Force Report Concerning
the Lake Tahoe Basin Portion of the El Dorado National Forest.
prepared for the Forest Service Multiple Use Survey, U.S. Department
of Agriculture (1970).
Engineering-Science, Inc., Comprehensive Study on Protection of Water
Resources of LateTahoe BasTin Through Controlled Waste Disposal"^
prepared for the Lake Tahoe Area Council and Fleischman Foundation,
Arcadia, California (1963).
, Waste Disposal Alternatives for the North Shore Area of Lake
Tahoe, prepared for the Placer County Board of Supervisors, Arcadia,
California (1965).
, A Regional Program for the Protection of Water Resources in
the Lake Tahoe-Truckee River Basin, prepared for the Lake Tahoe
Area Council, Arcadia, California, 65 pp (1967).
Felts, William E. and Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith. The Politics of
Development Review in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Institute of Governmental
Affairs, University of California, Davis, Environmental Quality
Series No. 16, 40 pp (1973).
112
-------
Friedmann, John and William Alonso, editors, Regional Development and
Panning, A Reader, MIT Press, Cambridge. Massachusetts! 722 pp " "
(1964).
°f
7—' A Reconnaissance of Stream Flow and Fluvial Sediment Transport
Incline Village AreaT Lake Tahoe. Nevada. UlatPr itocn..,.rcc Tnf»^t1on
Series Report 19, State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, 34 pp (1973).
Goldman, Charles R. , "Environmental Impact and Water Development,"
Journal of American Water Works Association, fidT No. 9, pp 545-549
\ \ y/£ ) .
Goldman, Charles R., Gerald Moshiri and Evelyne de Amezaga, "Synoptic
Study of Accelerated Eutrophication in Lake Tahoe - A Subalpine
• r'-,.,p£??ented at International Symposium on Water Pollution Control
in Cold Climates, sponsored by Institute of Water Resources,
University of Alaska and Federal Water Quality Administration,
21 pp (1970).
Goldman, Charles R., and Hans W. Paerl , "Heterotrophic Assays in the
Goldman, Charles R., Robert C. Richards, Hans W. Paerl, Robert C.
™H9j!y'/ecne •' Obf5jck and Will^m L. Quaide, Aquatic Studies
f jL ?^ Nl!Srq °u the UpPer Truckeee Rjyer Sediment Plume in
CalifJ?n?a* 28 Mg ) Memorandum X-62, 238, Moffett Field,"
Hamilton, H. R., System Simulation for Regional Analysis: An
Application to River-Basin Planning MIT Pr^s. M****rhltco++c (1959).
U*™y> Saf] G-» Assessment of Alternative Transportation Policies for the
Lake Tahoe Region, A Proposal for Research -- Prepared for LTAC. -
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, 17 pp (1970).
Marian, Lee. A Review of the Washoe County-Lake Tahoe 7nninn pian
unpublished paper, 21 pp (1967). - ^ - H ri •*
Hill, Clair A., and Associates, An Interim Report
Sewage Flows for South Tahoe Public Utilities n
California (1962). ~
113
-------
Hill, Clair A., and Associates, Contd.
Preliminary Report Concerning Sewage Treatment and Disposal .
—prepared for the South Fahoe Public Utilities District, Redding
California (1962a).
Exoortati on of Reclaimed Water from South Shore. Lake Tahoe.
— prepared for the South fahoe Public Utilities District, Redding,
California, pp 15 (1964).
_ t Engineering Report for South Tahoe Public Utilities District,
~~racling, California ~~
, Preliminary Engineering Report for Incline Village General
Improvement District — Sewage Treatment and Disposal System. Redding,
California (1968).
Mater and Sewer System Review and General Plan Development for
ne^/illage GID. Redding. California (\vw).
Hyne, Norman J., Paul Chelminski, James E. Court, Donn S. Gorsline
and Charles R. Goldman, "Quaternary History of Lake Tahoe,
California-Nevada," Geological Sor.ietv of America Bulletin, 83,
pp 1435-1448 (1972).
Hyne, Norman J., C. R. Goldman, and E. E. Court, "Mounds in Lake
Tahoe!Ta?ifornia-Nevada: A Model for Landslide Topography in the
Subsqueous Environment." The Journal of Geography. 81, No. 2 (1973).
International Engineering Company, Inc., St. Mauri ce-Helkamp-Musser,
Crystal Bav Development Company Incline Village Preliminary Report
on Water Supply and Sanitary Sewerage Systems, San Francisco, 42 pp
(I960).
Jackson, W. Turrentine and Donald J. Pisani, Lak|TahoeWatex:A
Chronicle of Conflict Affecting the Environment 1863-1939, Institute
of Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, Environ-
mental Quality Series No. 6, 72 pp (1972).
From Resort Area to Urban Recreation Center: Themes in the
"development of Lake Tahoe, Institute of Governmental Affairs, U.C.
Davis, Environmental Quality Series #15 (1973).
Jones and Stokes Associates, I nr... Addendum to Draft Environmental
Impact Assessment - Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency. Sacramento,
California, 189 pp
Draft Environmental Impact Assessment - Tahoe Truckee Sanitation
gencyT Sacramento, California, 516 pp (1973a).
114
-------
Kennedy Engineers, A Study of the Implications of WastewaterExport
from the Lake Tahoe Basin with Respect to the Watpr n..am-v rf thr
Carson River, prepared for the Board of Commissioners ot Churchill
County, Nevada, San Francisco, California, 79 pp (1966).
Lake Tahoe Area Council, Lake Tahoe 3-8. the official publication of
the Lake Tahoe Area Council (1960-1973).
. . Statement of Policy of the Lake Tahoe Area Council, unpublished,
4 pp (1967a).
» Questionnaire Responses. Broken Down by Counties, unpublished,
7 pp (1971 a).
» Report to the Lake Tahoe Planning Agency and Its Advisory
Planning Committee on the Future of Lake Tahoe. unpublished, 6 pp
(undated).
Lake Tahoe Area Council, California Department of Conservation and
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Tahoe
Vegetation - Soil Protection Symposium. Summary and Proceedings, 83 pp
(1968).
Lake Tahoe Joint Study Committee, Report of the Lake Tahoe Joint Study
Study Committee. Lake Tahoe, 56 pp (1967).
Layton, William B. Jr., Focus Tahoe North, prepared for Tahoe City
Public Utility District, II pp 0973).
League of Women Voters, Statement to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
unpublished, 5 pp (197TT"~~ —
League to Save Lake Tahoe. Statement of Policy on the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency Staff's Proposed Tahoe Regional Plan, unpublished.
LeGates, R. T., California Local Agency Formation Commission, Institute
of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley (1970).
Leisz, Douglas R., April Report_to Office of Management and Budget
on the Lake Tahoe Basin. Presidential ApnnintPP tn th* TanAQ p?qiOna 1
Planning Agency, unpublished, 4 pp (1973).
Le?P°ld» Luna BI' Hydrology for Urban Land Planning — A Guidebook on the
Hydrologic Effects of Land Use, U.S. Department of the Interior
Geological Survey Circular 554, Washington, D.C., 18 pp (1968).!
Leven, Charles L., "A Regionalist's View of Public Sector Planning in a
Society'" Papers of the Regional Science Association, 17.
115
-------
Matthews, R. A., Reconnaissance Geological Investigation of Six
Potential Sewage Disposal Sites, Lake Tahoe Area, prepared for the
Tahoe City and North Tahoe PUD's, 5 pp (1967).
Matthews, R. A. and Charles Schwarz, Lake Tahoe Basin - A Preliminary
Bibliography, 1969, Cooperative Report for Resources Agency, State
of California and Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Special Publication 36,
110 pp (1970).
McEvoy, III, James,, The American Public's Concern with the Environment;
A Study of Public Opinion, Institute of Governmental Affairs,
University of California, Davis, Environmental Quality Series No. 4,
29 pp (1971).
McEvoy, III, James, and Sharon Williams, Visual Pollution in the Lake
Tahoe Basin, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
University of California, Davis, 24 pp (1970).
Milgram, Grace, The City Expands, A Study of the Conversion of Land
from Rural to Urban Use, Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Pennsylvania, p 124 (1967).
Miller, Groezinger, Petttit and Evers, Memorandum to the League to
Save Lake Tahoe, Sierra Club re: Proposed Land Use Ordinance of the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. San Francisco, California, 14 pp
(1S71).
Moyer, Harlan, "The South Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Project,"
Public Works pp 87-94 (December 1968).
Muth, E. A. and Harvey 0. Banks, Memorandum on Estimated Future Water
Requirements — Lake Tahoe Basin, Presented to the Lake Tahoe Water
Problems Committee, Joint California-Nevada Interstate Compact
Commission (1959).
Nevada State Division of Health, Department of Health and Welfare,
Interstate Water Quality Standards and Plan of Implementation.
Carson City, Nevada, 38 pp (1967).
Nevada State Division of Health, Bureau of Environmental Health, Law
Relating to the Protection of Lake Tahoe Watershed and Regulations
Governing the Lake Tahoe Watershed, Carson City, Nevada, 13 pp
(1958, amended 1967).
Nevada Tax Commission, Comparative Statement of Segregations of the
Tax Rolls by Counties and Classes (1964-65 through 1970-71).
, Local Government Syllabus, Carson City, Nevada, (1971a)
116
-------
Neilson, James A., Lake Tahoe Vegetation II; Natural Vegetation Zones.
Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California at Davis,
Environmental Quality Series No. 17, 35 pp (1973).
Neilson, James A., Samuel Bamberg, Andrew Leiser, Elwood Miller and
Greg Hansen, Lake Tahoe Vegetation I: A Symposium. Institute of
Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, Environmental
Quality Series No. 12, 50 pp (1972).
Nie, Norma, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGraw
Hill, New Vork (1970).
Nolte, George S., Feasibility of Formation of a General Improvement
District to Serve the Tahoe Basin Area of Douglas County. Nevada.
prepared for the Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County,
Nevada, Palo Alto, California 26 pp (1959).
__» Report to the North Tahoe PUD on Sewage Works, Palo Alto,
^UaTifornia (1964).
. Engineering Design Report — Sewage Treatment Plant, prepared
for the Round Hill General Improvement District, Palo Alto,
California (1965).
North Tahoe and Tahoe City PUD's, Joint Request for State Aid for the
Implementation of Sewage Exportation Plan "B" for the North and
West Shores of Lake Tahoe (1966T'
North Tahoe Public Utility District and Tahoe City Public Utility
District, Presentation to the Economic Development Administration.
29 pp (1969T
Orme, Antony R., The Shore-zone System for Lake Tahoe. prepared for
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 30 pp (1971).
» Preliminary Draft — Shoreline Plan for Lake Tahoe, prepared for
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 51 pp (1973).
Pagter, Carl, and C. W. Wolfe Jr., "Lake Tahoe — The Future of A
National Asset: Land Use, Water and Pollution," California Law
Review. 52, No. 3, pp 563-622 (1964).
Patterson, George and Arthur Solomon, Property Taxes and Populist
Reform, Urban Institute Reprint (197377
Pepper, James E., Planning and Political Process, a Case Study: The
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, unpublished paper f!97n.
117
-------
Pepper, James, Contd.
_, An Approach to Environmental Impact Evaluation of:Land-Use
ans and Policies: The Tahoe Basiii;Planning Information System.
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California,
Berkeley, 27 pp (1972).
Placer County, Development Policy. Placer County, Nevada (1963).
, General Plan - 1966, prepared by the Placer County Planning
Department, Placer County, Nevada (1966).
, An Economic Growth Analysis, prepared as an element of the
General Plan, Placer County, Nevada, 93 pp (1970).
, Population and Housing Study, prepared as an element of the
General Plan, Placer County, Nevada, 283 pp (1970a).
, General Development Manual, Placer County, Nevada (1971).
, Division of Environmental^Health. Lake Tahoe -- Problems of
Development and Sewage Disposal as' Viewed by a Local HeaUh"
Department. Placer County. Nevada (undated).
Ramseier, Roy, Digest of California Laws Providing for the Control of
Water Pollution and the Construction and Financing of Water Pollution
Control Facilities, prepared for the State Hater Pollution Control
Board (1962).
Real Estate Research Corporation. Economic Base Study Lake Tahoe Basin.
California, a portion of the Technical Supplement, Preliminary Plan
Report, Lake Tahoe 1980 Regional Plan Program, San Francisco, California,
54 pp (1961).
Rogers, John H., and Grant M. Kennedy, Soils of the Tahoe Basin, prepared
for the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 66 pp (1970).
Security Pacific National Bank, Monthly Report of Building Permit
Activity in the Cities and Counties of California, prepared by
Economic Research Department, (1969-1972).
Seager, Deane, Sewage PispgsaVand Water Pollution Control in the
Lake Tahoe Basin (1960-64). Topic Report No. 1, Lake Tahoe Area
Council, unpublished, 9 pp (1964).
Sierra Economic Development District, Overall Economic Development
Program, Annual Progress Report for 1971. Volume II, Grass Valley
California, (1972).
118
-------
Smith, Raymond, Preliminary Survey and Analysis of Planninp and
Development Problems -- Lake Tahoe Portion of Washoe County. Nevada.
Topic Report No. 5, Lake Tahoe Area Council, Reno, Nevada,
unpublished, 27 pp (1960).
, A Report and Analysis of the Demographic, Economic, Geographic,
and Financial Aspects of the Lake Tahoe Basin and Surrounding Areas
in order to Ascertain the Need for the Construction of a New
Savings and Loan Facility at the Kingsbury Grade Intersection in
Douglas County. Nevada, prepared for Universal Inc., Reno, Nevada
(1963).
, A Comparison of Existing Subdivision, Zoning and Other
Development Controls in the Lake Tahoe Basin, prepared for the Tahoe
Regional Planning Commission, Reno, Nevada, 55 pp (1967).
. Douglas County General Plan. 1967-1985, Reno, Nevada (1967a).
, Tahoe Basin Controls, Reno, Nevada (1967b).
, Reconnaissance Report — Lake Tahoe Basin Area, Prepared for
th"? Tahoe Regional Planning Commission, Reno, Nevada, 26 pp (1968).
_ Nevada Tahoe General Plan, prepared for the Nevada Tahoe Regional
anning Agency, Reno, Nevada, 124 pp (1970).
» Housing Study of the Lake Tahoe Basin, prepared for TRPA, Lake
anoe, California, 62 pp (19717".
, Tahoe Palace -- A Resort Hotel; An Environmental Information
Report, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Review,
Reno, Nevada, 109 pp (1973).
, History of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1960-1970), paper
prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission, Reno, Nevada,
10 pp (undated).
Sorensen, Jens C., and James E. Pepper, A Procedure for Regional
Clearinghouse Review of Environmental Impact Statements —_ Pha_se_
Two, Review Draft, Prepared for the Association of Bay Area Governments,
Berkeley, California, 72 pp and appendices (1973).
Sorensen, Jens C., and Mitchell Moss. Development of Procedures and
Programs to Assist in the Preparation and Review of Impact Statements.
prepared for the American Association for the Advancement of
Science Symposia, Washington, D.C., 45 pp (1972).
119
-------
South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, Miscellaneous Data, Lake Tahoe
South Shore Area (undated a).
_ , Statistical Data (undated b).
South Lake Tahoe, City of, Revised Land Use Provisions, a Section of
the General Plan, prepared by the City Planning Department, 10 pp
South Tahoe Public Utility District, Prospectus and Notice of Sale for
1959 General Obligation Sewer Bonds, 21 pp January 14 (I960).
_ , 1953-1973 Twenty Years of Progress. 10 pp (1973).
Steinitz, Carl and Peter Rogers, A Systems Analysis Model of
Urbanization and Change, An Experiment in Interdisciplinary Education,
Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(1968).
Stone and Youngberg, Financing Major Water Improvements, prepared for
the North Tahoe PUD, San Francisco, Ca., 28 pp (1964).
Symonds, Phillip J., Central Places in a Resort Region: A Study of
Urbanization of the Lake Tahoe Basin, prepared as a contribution to
the Tahoe Studies group, Department of Behavioral Sciences, University
of California, Davis, 20 pp plus 21 pp of charts (1970).
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Report on Lake Tahoe Region Fire
Protection. South Lake Tahoe, California, 14 pp (1969).
» The Plan for Lake Tahoe, Preliminary General Plan. South Lake
aTioe, California, 1 pp June (1970).
_ , Guides for Planning — Technical Committee Reports, prepared
for the TRPA and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, as
follows:
Climate and Air Quality of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake
Tahoe, California, 31 pp (1971).
Cultural and Historical Significance of the Lake Tahoe Region.
South Lake Tahoe, California, 28 pp (1971a).
Geology and Geomorphology of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake
Tahoe, California, 59 pp (1971b).
Hydrology and Water Resources of the Lake Tahoe Regioru South
Lake Tahoe, California. 22 pp (1971c).
120
-------
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Guides for Planning —
Technical Committee Reports, Contd.
Land Resources or the Lake Tahoe Region, South Lake Tahoe,
California 37 pp (1971d).
Limnology and Water Quality of tie Lake Tahoe Basin. South
Lake Tahoe, California, 14 pp (1971e).
Recreational Resources of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake
Tahoe, California, 51 pp (1971f).
Soils of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake Tahoe, California,
21 pp (1971g).
Vegetation of the Lake Tahoe Region, South Lake Tahoe,
California, 43 pp (1971h).
Wildlife of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake Tahoe, California,
42 pp (1971i).
, Lake Tahoe Region Storm Drainage, prepared by Storm Drainage
Committee, South Lake Tahoe, California, 9 pp (1971J).
, Proposed Regional Plan, unpublished, 67 pp (1971k).
, Report on Lake Tahoe Region Electrical Supply, South Lake
Tahoe, California, 13 pp (19711).
, Report on Lake Tahoe Region Solid Waste Collection and Disposal,
South Lake Tahoe, California, 7 pp (1971m).
, Report on Lake Tahoe Region Wastewater Collection. Treatment
and~ Disposal, South Lake Tahoe, California, 28 pp (1971n).
, Report on Water Distribution — Lake Tahoe Region, South Lake
ahoe, California, 10 pp (1971o).
, TRPA News (May 26, 1973-May 11, 1973).
, Technical Advisory Committee. Minutes. South Lake Tahoe,
CTTifornia, July 5 (1972a).
, Grading Ordinance, No. 5, South Lake Tahoe, California,
~~T6"~pp, February 10 (1972b).
, Land Use Ordinance, No. 4, South Lake Tahoe, California, 37 pp
~
121
-------
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Contd.
, Shoreline Ordinance. No. 6. South Lake Tahoe, California, 16 pp
97237:
, Subdivision Ordinance, No. 7, South Lake Tahoe, California, 16 pp
t Summary Report of All Correspondence and Testimony Relative to
the" Proposed Conservation, Recreation, and Open Space Plan,
Recommendations from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Staff
(1973a).
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, Financing Plan. Regional Sewerage
Project, 49 pp (1973).
Trimont Land Company and North Star General American Development
Corporation, Dollar Properties, Tahoe City PUD, Togetherness, presented
to the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission, 34 pp (1970).
Turner, Kenneth M., Lake Tahoe and Truckee River Basin - Future
Municipal and Irrigation Water Requirements in California. Department
of Water Resources, State of California, unpublished memorandum,
6 pp (1960).
_J , Nevada Portion of Lake Tahoe Basin - Future Municipal and
Irrigation Water Requirements, Department of Water Resources, State
of California, unpublished memorandum, 4 pp (1960a).
, Present and Projected Population. Land Use and Water Use in
the California Portion of the Lake Tahoe Basin, a memorandum report
of the California Department of Water Resources, Central District
(preliminary data, subject to revision) (1971).
United States Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The
Problem of Special Districts in American Government, A Commission
Report, Washington D.C. (1964).~
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Flood Plain
Information Trout and Bijou Creeks. South Lake Tahoe. California.
prepared for El Dorado County, Sacramento, California, 23 pp (1969).
, Flood Plain Informatign^Upper Truckee River. South Lake Tahoe.
EaTiforrna. prepared for El Dorado County, Sacramento, California.
27 pp (1969a).
United States Congress, Public Law 91-148, Tahoe Regional Planning
Compact, 91st Congress, S. 118 (December 18, 1969b).
122
-------
United States Department of Agriculture, Multiple Use
for National Forest Lands in the Lake Tahoe Ma.-m.
Regions 4 and 5, Washington D. C., 56 pp (1969).
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
OffTclo-
_' j!ureau of Census, Census of population. 1950. 1960. 197Q.
U.S. Government Printing Office (I950a, 1960a, 1970a). -
ata?en° F1eld Office' Population Forecasts for the Lake Tahoe Basin
yyy ) .
UnlJS?n?SteJ-DepaEtmentJ?f Inter1or' Fede™l Water Pollution Control
?? ^ 1.?^°"'. rLCeedlnq!'.Confer!nrP *" the Matter of PoUitlfin
of the InterstateWaTers of Lake Tahoe and its tHbutarles.TTmr
2_, Washington, D.C., (July 18-20, 1966). - -
_^ Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Division of
Construction Grants, Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Construction
Cost Index, Washington, D.C., 59 pp (1968). -
h Pollution Control Administration, Pacific
n 5 h-91?n> Status of Water Quality Management. Lake Tahoe
in. Washington, D.c. (1970). - - - ~~
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
(!£/?! 1nfiS> ^ Qud11ty Manageme"t Planning. Washington, D.C.,
_ » Cost Effectiveness of Water Quality Programs (1972).
— tm'iThLiFedNrau Wa^ Pollution Cnntrol Act Amendments of 1972
Highlights^ Washington, n.r.. QQ73). - " - ~
nl0pen .Let?eL ^'the-Mahapers-of America's Waste Treatment
ities, by Robert Trl, Washington. D.C. (1973a). -
__^, "Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements — Interim
Regulations," Federal Register^ Washington, D.C. (19735).
H! F°J?S5 Service> and state Water Resources Control
7 PP (1973?) °rnia* Cinder Cone Investiaatinn. unpublished report,
United States Forest Service, Land Capabilities:
fti-- ' on
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, South Lake Tahoe, Califo-nCa
^ i y i £. ) ,
123
-------
United States House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works
Water Pollution Hearings on South Lake Tahoe. California. Subcommittee
on Rivers and Harbors, Eighty-Ninth Congress Second Session
Washington, D.C., 326 pp (1966). '
United States Public Health Service, Report on Water Pollution rnntmi
Northwestern Lahontan Basin, Washington, D.C. (1953). ~~ '
United States Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Property
Taxation. Effects on Land Use and Local Government Revenue?.
prepared by Congressional Research Service for the Subcommittee
on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C. (1971).
» Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, National Land Use
Policy, Background Papers on Past and Pending Legislation and the"
Roles of the Executive Branch, Congress and the States in Land
Use Policy and Planning, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Washington,
D.C. (1972).
» Committee on Public Works, Environmental Problems of the Lake
Tahoe Basin. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Air and Water'
Pollution. Brockway, California, Ninety-Second Congress, Second
Session, Serial No. 92-H40, Washington, D.C., 829 pp (1972a).
Walters Engineering, Nevada Rural Communities Water and Wastewater Plan
prepared for Carson City, Douglas and Storey Counties, Reno,'*
Nevada (1972).
- . , » Lake Tahoe Water. Wastewater. and Drainage, HUD-701 Planning
study* prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Reno,
Nevada (1973).
__> Regional Water/Sewers Planning and Programming, prepared for
tne Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Reno, Nevada (undated).
Wandesforde-Smith, Geoffrey, Environmental Watchdogs; The Promise
°! ..? *nd ?011*1£S- Institute of Governmental Affairs, University
of California, Davis, Environmental Quality Series No. 8 (1972).
Warren, E. Phillip, Report on Present and Ultimate Population.
Occupancy and Water use - Lake Tahoe, California, prepare? for the
California - Nevada Interstate Compact Commission, Sacramento,
California, unpublished report, 22 pp (1957).
Washoe County, Tentative Plat Requirements. Washoe County Portion of
the Lake Tahoe Basin, Washoe County Planning Commlssinn, Pgno~
Nevada (undated).
124
-------
White, Kenneth R., Development Plan to 1985. Lake Tahoe Portion of
Douglas County, Douglas County, Nevada (1964).
Wirth, Theodore J. and Associates, Report and Draft, Environmental
Impact Statement, Lake Tahoe Plan and Effectuating Ordinances.
prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Billings, Montana,
pp 115 (1972).
Wilsey and Ham, Preliminary Study for a General Plan, prepared for
the Lake Tahoe Area Council, Millbrae, California (1958).
, Technical Supplement, Preliminary Plan Report, Lake Tahoe
Regional Plan Program, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning
Commissions of California and Nevada, Millbrae, California (1963).
, 1980 Regional Plan, prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning
Commissions of California and Nevada, Millbrae, California (1964).
, Technical Supplement. 1980 Regional Plan, prepared for the
TaToe Regional Planning Commission, Millbrae, California (1967).
Wood, Samuel, and Alfred Heller, The Phantom Cities of California.
Sacramento, California (1963).
Addendum: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lake Tahoe
Study. Section 114 PL 92-500, January 1974 Draft.
125
-------
SECTION X
ABBREVIATIONS
ARC
CAC
CEQ
CEQA
DWR
EIA
EIR
EIS
ERA
ESI
FHA
FWPCA
FWQA
GID
GPD
HUD
LAFCo
LRWQCB
tTAC
MGD
NEPA
NRS
NTPUD
PUD
RWQCB
SID
SPSS
STPUD
TCPUD
TRPA
TRPC
TTSA
USFS
WRCB
Advisory Planning Commission
City Annexation Commission
Council on Environmental Quality
California Environmental Quality Act
Department of Water Resources
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Statement
Economic Research Associates
Engineering Science, Inc.
Federal Housing Administration
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Federal Water Quality Administration
General Improvement District
Gallons Per Capita Per Day
Housing and Urban Development
Local Agency Formation Commission
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lake Tahoe Area Council
Million Gallons Per Day
National Environmental Policy Act
Nevada Revised Statutes
North Tahoe Public Utility District
Public Utility District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sewer Improvement District
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
South Tahoe Public Utility District
Tahoe City Public Utility District
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe Regional Planning Commission
Tahoe Truckee Sanitary Agency
United States Forest Service
Water Resources Control Board
126
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDIX A
CHRONICLE OF INFLUENTIAL EVENTS AND DECISIONS:
LAKE TAHOE BASIN 1950-1972
Any chronicle describing the events and changes since 1950 in the
Tahoe Basin necessarily requires considerable selectivity and con-
densation. The purpose of this section is to describe the major events
and decisions, both internal and external, which appear to have shaped
the pattern of land use and the development of wastewater facilities
to a significant degree. Those events and influences which relate
directly to the central focus of research will naturally receive great-
er attention although secondary influences are described when appro-
priate.
The chronicle is divided into four parts: Evolution of the Land Use
Pattern; Wastewater Management Policy, Planning, and Construction;
Land Use Plans and Policy — Local and Regional; and Exogenous and
Endogenous Influences. Each describes events and decisions with a
brief discussion of the type and scale of resulting influences. Unle££
otherwise noted, the source for events in this chronology is "Lake
Tahoe," Vol. 1-8, official publication of the Lake Tahoe Area Council.
Evolution of the Land Use Pattern
As in the previous discussions of land use, the primary measures with
available historical data are population, subdivision activity, build-
ing permits, housing, and measures of commercial activity. Where
data is available the specific location of activity is also included.
1950 - 1954
By 1950 the Tahoe Basin population was estimated to be 2500 permanent
residents, 5200 seasonal employees, 8100 seasonal recreationists, and
17,300 short-term peak day tourists. Thus, peak day population would
have reached 31,600 in 1950 (Table VI - 8). The land use pattern was
generally concentrated close to the shore on alluvium soils where
septic tanks were easily constructed. In addition, highway access to
and circulation around the lake served to encourage a land use pattern
contiguous to the circulation systems, which generally parallel the
127
-------
lake shore. Approximately 75% of the highway system is within 1/2
mile of the lake shore with an additional 15% within the first mile
and the remaining 10% between one and two miles distance (staff calcu-
lations). This proximity of access quite naturally served to concen-
trate development close to the shoreline.
Subdivision approvals prior to 1950 had resulted in 17,500 single fam-
ily residential lots within the Basin although only 5000 houses are
estimated to have been constructed (Table VI - 9).
1955 - 1959
No population or housing data are available for 1955; however, an addi-
tional 3000 subdivision lots were approved, with 1800 lots, or 60% of
Basin subdivision occurring in El Dorado County. Commercial and other
urban services were very limited and tended to be spread along the
North, Northwest, and South Shore highways, with little apparent
concentration or planned urban structure. In 1959 an extensive real
estate development, Tahoe Keys, was built on land fill which took
place on the marsh lands at the Upper Truckee River lake inlet. This
land fill removed the natural sediment filtration of the Truckee River
provided by the marsh (California Resources Agency, 1969). The Upper
Truckee is the largest lake tributary, and the loss of the marsh con-
tributed significantly to increasing sedimentation and turbidity prob-
lems. Septic tank leach fields in this filled land would have quickly
drained into the lake; obviously such a project could not have occurred
without the availability of sewers.
1960 - 1964
The 1960 census count indicated 12,461 permanent residents, an increase
of 398% over 1950 (Table VI - 8). In addition over 8500 new lots were
approved — nearly tripling the subdivision activity in the previous
five-year period. Over 6500 of these new lots were added to El Dorado
County, accounting for over 75% of the basin total. Housing counts in
the 1960 census show 10,000 single-family units — double the estimated
1950 count (Table VI - 9).
Seasonal and peak populations indicate differential rates of growth in
permanent, seasonal, and peak populations. The peak day population
is estimated to have been 93,000 and the seasonal population 38,000
(Table VI - 8).
In August of 1960 Washoe County, Nevada, adopted a master plan for
Incline Village, a Boise Cascade major planned development. This
approval in effect permitted a potential population increase of 30,000
residents in the region. It is significant to note that prior to this
time, the scale of development was essentially controlled by the
septic tank limitations of soils and geology. With the availability
128
-------
of sewerage treatment facilities this limitation was effectively re-
moved and land developers could take advantage of economies of scale,
thus increasing the size and intensity of development.
1965 - 1969
Housing and population data do not exist for 1965, thus subdivision
approvals, building permits and commercial activity are the only
available indicators of the evolution of the land use pattern. Sub-
division activity during the period 1960-65 dropped significantly as
6500 lots were approved compared to 8500 during the previous five-year
period. Of the lots approved, nearly one-half (3100) were in El
Dorado County, and approximately one-third (2000) approved for the
Boise Cascade Incline Village development in Washoe County (staff cal-
culations).
The density of land use was increasing in the emerging urban centers in
the Basin. In 1965 high-rise construction appeared and the first
incorporated city, South Lake Tahoe, was established in the region. A
study of urbanization of the Lake Tahoe Basin indicates that fifteen
separate commercial centers can be identified in the region. These
centers are concentrated along the perimeter highways, and during this
period each increased in the number and type of services provided
(Symonds, 1970).
1970 - 1972
The permanent population doubled between 1960 and 1970. The U.S.
Census counts record a resident population of 25,000 in 1970. Esti-
mates of seasonal and peak populations again vary dramatically but
appear to average at 67,000 and 155,000 respectively (Table VI - 8).
A large increase in both subdivided lots and condominiums marks the
period 1965-1970 (See Tables VI - 3 and VI -5). Over 13,000 resi-
dential lots were added to the Basin, plus building permits for over
3000 condominium and multiple family units. The actual increase in
housing stock is difficult to determine due to reporting problems but
by 1970 a total of 21,000 housing units were counted in the Tahoe Basin
(including both single family and multiple family units (Table VI -
10)).
Commercial land uses also increased significantly between 1965-1970 as
high-rise casinos, hotels, major shopping centers and motels became
integral parts of the urban centers.
Wastewater Management — Policy. Planning and Construction
This section traces the major events in treatment system expansion and
seeks to highlight the sequence of policy decisions that shaped that
expansion. (Unless otherwise noted, the information contained in this
129
-------
section was compiled from the LTAC newsletter and the Sewerage Dis-
trict offices.)
1950 - 1954
Wastewater treatment was confined to the use of septic tanks in the
early years of Tahoe Basin development. The 1950's saw the beginning
of centralized treatment. In 1953, the Tahoe City Public Utility
District (formed in 1938 for the purpose of water service) obtained
a California State loan to assist in the construction of a sewage col-
lection, treatment, and disposal system. This system was completed
and in operation by 1954, serving approximately 160 acres of develop-
ment. In 1949, the North Tahoe Public Utility District was formed,
although eight years elapsed until treatment facilities were completed
in 1957. At the South Shore, the South Tahoe Public Utility District
(STPUD) was formed in 1950, the design of collection and treatment
was completed in 1952, and operation commenced early in 1956.
In 1953, the Douglas County (Nevada) Sewer Improvement District No. 1
(DCSID) contracted with STPUD to deliver the Nevada sewage to STPUD
for treatment and disposal. This was done to avoid the high cost of
constructing two completely separate systems (Brown and Caldwell,
1959).
]955 - 1959
A California-Nevada Interstate Compact Commission was established in
1955 to determine water allocations in the California-Nevada Sierra
basins. Two years later an "unofficial" Tahoe Basin population pro-
jection was developed by the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR) for the Interstate Compact Commission. The publication, "Lake
Tahoe Population and Water Use Survey," dated April 30, 1957 included
population projections from 1960-2010. The projections have proven
to be significantly larger than the actual rate of population growth in
the Tahoe Basin, and although the DWR publication was an in-house
document, it became the basis for calculating plant capacity for all
treatment plants designed between 1963 and 1967.
A Federal Water Pollution Control Administration grant for treatment
plant construction was awarded to the NTPUD in 1957, marking the
beginning of direct federal involvement in wastewater management in
the Tahoe Basin.
A second population projection indicating extremely rapid growth rates
for the Tahoe Basin was developed by the Reno Field Office of the U.S.
Department of Commerce in 1959. This projection was similar in magni-
tude to the 1957 (and 1959 update) California DWR projections, indi-
cating 248,000 persons in 1970 and 313,000 by 1980.
130
-------
In 1959 a $250,000 FWPCA Grant was awarded to STPUD for assistance in
construction of a 2.5 MGD secondary treatment plant. In addition, a
major report for STPUD prepared by the engineering firm of Brown and
Caldwell on Collection. Treatment and Disposal of Sewage in the South
Tahoe Area, briefly discussed (but chose not to recommend) the alter-
native of pumping effluent out of the Tahoe watershed.
The alternative of disposing of treated sewage in the lake was also
briefly discussed but emphatically rejected for several reasons: the
probable impact of permanent degradation of the lake through eutro-
phication; the possibility of raw sewage entering the lake during
treatment plant outages, and a resultant pollution of recreational
beaches; the hazard of setting an undesirable precedent; and the dis-
agreeable implications, at least in an aesthetic sense, of the pres-
ence of sewage outfalls. By rejecting both direct discharge into
the lake and export, as well as deep well injection, the only practi-
cable alternative left was that of land disposal through spray
irrigation (Brown and Caldwell, 1959).
1960 - 1964
In November of 1961, the Lake Tahoe Area Council, through a $125,000
grant from the Max C. Fleischmann Foundation of Nevada, employed
Engineering Science Inc., of Arcadia, California, to furnish engineer-
ing and scientific services for a Lake Tahoe sewage engineering study.
A special blue ribbon board of wastewater management consultants was
also appointed to direct and supervise the study, "one of the most
comprehensive engineering studies of its kind ever undertaken in
the United States." (LTAC, Vol. 3, no. 11, p. 1)
It is interesting to note that the announcement of the study followed
a threatened"cease and desist" order in September, issued by the
Lahontan Regional Water Pollution Control Board against the STPUD.
This notice to issue a "cease and desist" order claimed 2 million
gallons of treated effluent had been released from the district's
holding ponds following the Labor Day holiday weekend. Such a release
constituted a violation of the board's requirements prohibiting dis-
charge of sewage or sewage effluent into Lake Tahoe or its tributary
streams. Sewage and land use had clearly become the major planning
issues at Lake Tahoe by 1961.
The sewage issue in the Lake Tahoe Basin accelerated in 1962. Califor-
nia Governor Brown urged bi-state basin-wide coordination on wastewater
projects after Nevada approved construction of a community sewage sys-
tem at Elk Point involving large-scale ground disposal of effluent
within a few thousand feet of the lakeshore. The Governor's concern
stemmed from consultant reports that ground disposal would not keep
sewage effluent from entering the lake. A month earlier the California-
Nevada Interstate Compact Commission had agreed to the export of
131
-------
sewage wastewaters from the Basin if and when the two states succeeded
in reaching agreement on the water compact (already under negotiation
for more than five years).
Water pollution problems had begun to mount during the winter months
at the South Shore where large accumulations of frozen effluent at
the treatment plant posed a threat in the event of a rapid thaw and
runoff. By May the threat had become fact. The South Tahoe system
was faced with a "cease and desist" order as the melting and runoff of
frozen effluent, combined with unseasonally heavy sewage loads, had
resulted in seepage into Heavenly Creek and the Upper Truckee River.
Temporary measures eventually averted major discharge into the lake.
Public concern had not however reached a point of action; local pro-
perty owners defeated two sewage facility bond issues in 1962, one for
plant expansion, the other for acquisition of additional lands for
facilities. At the North Shore, the Nevada Bureau of Environmental
Health approved a 1,000,000 GPD ground disposal site for Incline Village,
thus further expanding the sewage disposal controversy.
The intensive wastewater study commissioned by LTAC in 1961, destined to
influence both the immediate and future land use pattern, was presented
publicly in June of 1963. The report, titled, Comprehensive Study on
Protection of Water Resources of Lake Tahoe Basin Through Controlled
Waste Disposal, concluded that the tertiary treatment of sewage wastes
to "drinking water" standards and the final disposal of the highly re-
fined effluent to the Truckee River Basin would provide the most feasible
method of resolving the Lake Tahoe sewage problem and give positive pro-
tection against pollution of lake waters.
September of 1963 was marked by a visit from the Presidentially appointed
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board who consulted with other federal,
state and local officials on the Basin's sewage disposal problems and
pollution prevention programs. . Federal involvement in Basin sewage
problems had grown slowly during the early 60's, and this 1963 meeting
may well have served notice of an expanding federal role.
The following year was marked with a burst of activity in four of the
special districts involved in the provision of sewage facilities. South
Tahoe, Tahoe City, North Tahoe, and Douglas County, SID #1 were all in-
volved in studies for annexations or expanded treatment plants as the
pace of wastewater management programs accelerated. A grant from the
Fleischmann Foundation to Placer County provided for funds to study
export from the North Shore, while STPUD commenced work on a tertiary
treatment plant.
In a major pronouncement in that same year, the Governors of California
and Nevada issued a Joint Program for Progress at Lake Tahoe which
adopted as a goal the export of wastes recommended by the 1963 Compre-
hensive Study.
132
-------
1965 - 1969
The growing number and complexity of sewage disposal issues makes a
comprehensive description of events difficult at best. For example,
in 1965 South Tahoe PUD activities included: receipt of
-------
water quality criteria and a plan of implementation for the whole state,
including strict criteria for the Tahoe Basin. With FWPCA approval in
1968 the California and Nevada policies and criteria became State and
Federal water quality standards.
By 1967 the direct federal investment in Lake Tahoe sewage facilities
had grown to $2,300,000 including $770,000 in 1967 alone. In addition
to construction grants, a $427,000 federal grant was awarded to the
University of California at Davis to study the basic limnology of the
lake and measure biotic productivity.
In 1968 an additional $6,500,000 in federal grants was committed for a
variety of sewage projects in the Basin. That same year, the California
Legislature adopted a 1970 deadline for sewage export (in 1969, however,
the deadline was extended to 1972). STPUD, having planned for export
earlier, began operation of its sewage export system in 1968, ushering
in the present chapter in the management of wastewater at Lake Tahoe.
In 1969 an additional $2,350,000 in federal grants was awarded to
local districts, bringing the total federal commitment to over
$11,000,000 in slightly over 10 years.
1970 - 1972
The Environmental Protection Agency was formed in 1970, incorporating
the functions of the FWQA in the development and administration of
federal water quality programs. The growing federal involvement in
wastewater management at Lake Tahoe became the responsibility of the
EPA who in 1970 approved over $950,000 in Tahoe Basin grants. One
grant was awarded to the NTPUD for a pump station, the other to Incline
Village GID to expand treatment facilities to 3 MGD of secondary treat-
ment. In addition to the EPA grants, North Tahoe and Tahoe City PUD
completed construction and commenced operation of jointly financed ex-
port to the cinder cone disposal site, and Incline Village GID ex-
panded its treatment facility and began exporting secondary treated
effluent over Spooner Summit to the Carson River. In April of 1970
the Nevada Bureau of Environmental Health placed a ban on use of
septic tanks in Douglas and Washoe Counties in order to implement the
established export policy.
The EPA granted $1,300,000 in 1971 to Tahoe City PUD and to the Tahoe-
Douglas District for extensions of and additions to facilities. In
addition to grant activities, the EPA as well as the LRWQCB were
active in enforcement of water quality violations. The Lahontan Board
also adopted an Interim Basin Plan to establish a framework for the
water quality control effort in the Basin, and to meet the federal
requirements for continued federal grant assistance.
In Nevada Governor O'Callaghan placed a ban on septic tanks on Nevada
Basin land unless they were used in conjunction with holding tanks, and
he ordered all effluent exported by December 31, 1972.
134
-------
Land Use Plans and Policies — the Shift from Local to Regional Control
Until the establishment of the TRPA in December 1969, all governmental
land use decisions-planning and regulation—were a function of
local governments. The growing land use issue focused directly on
the ability of local governments to regulate private land uses consis-
tent with conserving the great scenic values of the region acknowledged
to be of national importance. This brief chronicle highlights the
emergence of regional land use planning and regulation in the Tahoe
Basin.
Growing concern over the lack of coordinated Basin-wide planning re-
sulted in the formation in 1958 of parallel planning commissions in
each state; the Tri-County Planning Commission in Nevada, and the Bi-
County Planning Commission in California. These commissions lacked any
formal powers and therefore served in advisory capacities only. However,
in meeting together as a "regional planning commission," the need for
coordinated regional level planning was explicitly acknowledged.
The two separate state planning commissions formally became the Tahoe
Regional Planning Commission in 1960. However, lacking funds, staff,
and formal powers and authority, the body remained merely an advisory
body to the counties, although the planning directors of the various
jurisdictions served on a Technical Advisory Committee to the Commission.
in February of the following year Wilsey, Ham and Blair, a Millbrae,
Lalitorma planning firm, were selected to prepare a regional master
plan (funded by a grant from the Fleischmann Foundation). The study,
which would require 18-24 months to complete, was to include public
services, an economic base study covering business, industry, finance
and employment, population projections and distribution,water supply,
sanitation, watershed protection, transportation, land values, educa-
tion, and recreation.
Preliminary reports by Wilsey, Ham and Blair for their 1980 Plan
studies indicated a pressing need for public facility land~~uses~at
Lake Tahoe in contrast to the current (1962) oversupply of residential
lots which existed in the Basin. It is significant to note that the
excess sites could accommodate a potential population of 78,000 persons.
In addition, the projected population prepared by the consultants indi-
cated a peak summer population of 418,000 by 1980, a figure considerably
larger than either the DWR or U.S. Department of Commerce projections.
Hearings to review the regional plan were held during the summer of
1963, and in October the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission approved a
final version of the plan. Plan document recommendations included: a
system of scenic easements; establishment of single family residential
density controls of 3.5 units/acre in order to preserve vegetation and
ecological cover vital to the character of the lake; establishment of
apartment densities of less than 15 families per acre, except in urban
centers; establishment of very high standards for subdivision and develop-
ment on steep hillsides; and map zoning districts to reflect precise
135
-------
plans at the county level. This version of the plan also indicated a
significant reduction in the 1980 peak population—from 418,000 to
313,000 persons.
In July 1964 the regional plan was formally adopted by the TRPC. The
significant decisions of the year, however, appear to be those leading
toward a Basin-wide export of sewage. An additional decision of major
proportion was a request by the TRPC for a Joint Study Committee, ap-
pointed by the state governments of California and Nevada, to study
the feasibility of some form of regional government for the Tahoe Basin.
California and Nevada lawmakers agreed in February of 1965 to conduct
the bi-state study of regional government and appointed a nine-member
committee to present their findings and recommendations by the end of
a two-year period.
The Joint Study Committee Report was completed in 1967, recommending a
Bi-State Regional Agency with extensive powers to strengthen rather than
replace existing local governments. The agency would consist of a fif-
teen-member board with equal representation from state and local govern-
ments, and from local and non-resident interests. In addition, a non-
voting member would represent federal interests. Following vigorous
local objections and heated legislative debate the Califprnia legis-
lature passed a bill (one of four introduced) creating a California Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency. California Governor Reagan signed the bill;
thus within the year California had created its half of the bi-state
agency. During the same period Nevada Governor Laxalt left no doubt
about his feelings. In a personal position paper he gave complete and
unqualified support to a Tahoe Regional Agency. Governor Laxalt also
stated he would call a special Nevada Legislative Session in 1968 to
specifically take up the question.
Significant events of 1968 included both the signing of the California-
Nevada Interstate (Water) Compact (which has not been ratified by
Congress) and the signing into law of the Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency. Both these decisions were the results of lengthy and exhaus-
tive discussion, the water compact involving some 13 years of negotiation.
The following December after at least a decade of concern over the quality
of land use planning and controls in the Tahoe Basin, President Nixon
signed the Bi-State Planning Compact into law. The compact created the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), granting extensive regulatory
powers to the eleven-member governing body. (Section VII of this report
discusses the influence of the TRPA on land use, wastewater manage-
ment, and environmental quality during the period 1969-1972.)
Exogenous and Endogenous Influences
The urbanizing of the Lake Tahoe Basin between 1950 and 1973 has been
greatly influenced by factors outside the realm of land use and waste-
water planning and development.
136
-------
Population Growth
Population growth rates in California ranged from 2.7% in 1951 to 4.5%
by 1957. The average increase for the 1950-1960 period was 4.0%. How-
ever, the rate of increase declined dramatically during the following
ten-year period. The 1969 rate of increase was 1.5%, and the decade
average was 2.7% per year (California Department of Finance 1969).
Of particular relevance to the Tahoe housing market is the growth of
families with incomes greater than$10,000 in the primary market area.
This figure, 293,000 in 1960 grew to 598,000 by 1972—an increase of
102% (see Supplementary Appendix).
Gaming
In 1955 gaming casinos were established on a year-round basis at the
Nevada state line, and the Tahoe Basin began to attract a growing
visitor population based on the gaming and entertainment business.
Although the direct spatial impact of this new land use was consider-
ably limited, the indirect impacts on local traffic, housing and em-
ployment have grown to major proportions.
The increase in gaming in the Tahoe Basin can be best understood by
observing the growth of gaming revenues in Douglas County. In 1956
five million dollars were generated in gaming revenues. By 1972 this
had grown to 83 million, an incredible increase of 1500% over the
seventeen-year period (Table VI - 11).
Skiing
The 1960 Winter Olympic games were held in nearby Squaw Valley, sti-
mulating the development of winter sports in the Tahoe Region and
providing international publicity. In 1960 an estimated 140,000
skier days were recorded for the North Shore area. This had grown to
700,000 by 1970, an increase of 400% in ten years. A similar but not
as dramatic growth was experienced at the South Shore where skier days
grew from 110,000 to 300,000 over the same time period (ERA 1971).
Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor recreation figures for the Tahoe Basin are not available for the
1950's; however, the U.S. Forest Service estimates an average annual
growth rate of 2.25% in total forest land recreation (Smith, April
1973).
Access
Increases in the number of vehicles entering the region serve to in-
dicate the nature of exogenous influence on the area. Traffic on
137
-------
Highway 50 in El Dorado County has increased from an average daily
count of 5000 in 1950 to 25,000 in 1972, a fourfold increase. Similar-
ly traffic from the Basin to Carson City has increased from 900 per
day to 6000 per day, over 500% increase. Only Highway 89 which pro-
vides access from Interstate 80 has failed to show a significant in-
crease with only a 65% increase over the 22-year period. (California
Department of Public Works, 1938-1972; Nevada Division of Highways,
personal communication.)
138
-------
APPENDIX B
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
Since wastewater management and land use are interrelated, an under-
standing of the legal framework which guides these activities is
necessary.
In both California and Nevada, jurisdiction over land use is vested
in five levels of government: 1) the state, 2) the region, 3) counties,
4} cities, and 5) special districts. Of these five entities, cities,
counties, and later the region, have been given primary legal juris-
diction for direct control of land use. The control exercised by
the state and special districts, while important, has been largely
indirect.
State Planning
Under the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all powers not
specifically delegated to the Federal Government were reserved to
the states. Control over land use was not one of the specifically
enumerated federal powers and is therefore a matter of state responsi-
bility. Both California and Nevada have state planning laws. (See,
for example, California Government Code Title 7.) In both states,
however, planning at the state level is largely limited to the location
of major public facilities, such as state prisons, hospitals, highways,
etc.
Primary authority over land use planning and control has been delegated
to regional or local agencies. The source of this authority is the
residual sovereignty of the state which permits government to regulate
all human conduct within the jurisdiction of the state. This policing
power has been delegated to subordinate levels of government by state
constitutional provisions and by legislative enactment. The state of
California and Nevada have so thoroughly divested themselves of their
power over land use that very little of that power remains. The role
of the state in land use planning is now largely limited to controlling
the content and procedure of local and regional planning.
Regional Planning
California has long recognized the need for land use planning on a
regional scale. The State Legislature has not, however, been willing
to impose a workable system of regional planning. For this reason
regional planning in California has been very weak. (See Marks and
Taber, "Prospects for Regional Planning in California," Pacific Law
Journal, p. 117.) While regional planning statutes do exist in
California (Regional Planning Law, California Government Code section
139
-------
65060 and District Planning Law, California Government Code section
66100), they are weak and seldom if ever used. With few exceptions
all of the regional planning in California is conducted pursuant to
the so-called Joint Powers Act (California Government Code section
6500). Most of the voluntary associations of governments formed under
this statute have been organized for the purpose of receiving financial
support for their planning activities under various federal programs.
(Vestal, "Government Fragmentation in Urban Areas," 43 University of
Colorado Law Review, p. 155.) Of these federal programs, those
contained in Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (40 U.S.C. sec. 461,
1970) and in CirculaFJ-gS. are probably the most potent. (See
"Bureau of the Budget,11 Evaluation, Review and Coordination of Federal
Assistance Programs and Projects, Attachment A-2, Circular No. A-95.
July 24, 1969.)
The status of regional planning in Nevada has been similar to that of
California. The difference seems to be that Nevada's legislators have
been less willing than their colleagues in California to erect a
statutory facade where no genuine commitment to regional planning exists.
As a result Nevada has fewer unused planning statutes than California.
Clearly the most significant move toward regional planning in the Tahoe
Basin was marked by the creation of the bi-state Tahoe Regional Plan-
ning Agency. This agency draws its authority from a bi-state compact
adopted by California (California Government Code sec. 66800), Nevada
(N.R.S. sec. 277,200), and subsequently ratified by Congress (83
STAT. 360, 1969).
In the course of developing this bi-state agency irreconcilable differ-
ences emerged between California and Nevada concerning the scope of
planning power given to the agency. To overcome this political impass
California created the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(California Government Code Title 7.5). The California agency was
given powers not given to the bi-state agency. These powers, such as
agency review of state initiated public works projects (California
Government Code sections 67102 and 67103), may only be exercised in
California. The California agency, however, serves as the California
delegation to the bi-state agency. The meetings of the two agencies
are held concurrently although the jurisdiction of the California
delegation is somewhat broader than that of the bi-state agency.
The powers of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) are broad
(Tahoe Regional Planning Compact Article VI). They Include the power
to "adopt all necessary ordinances, rules, regulations and policies"
necessary to carry out a regional land use plan. Among the most
significant pieces of legislation thus far adopted by the TRPA is the
Land Use Ordinance. The innovative regulatory approach embodied in
this ordinance bases permitted land use on the ecological constraints
of the land being regulated. The ordinance also contains a permit
140
-------
procedure which requires an applicant to submit a Land Capability
Report before any administrative variance may be granted (TRPA Land Use
Ordinance, February 10, 1972 Section 4.00).
Local Planning
Until the advent of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 1969, all
land use planning in the Tahoe Basin was undertaken by counties and
cities. In California this power stems from three legal sources. The
first is a general constitutional grant of power which provides that
any city or county "may make and enforce ... all such local, police,
sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general
laws" (California Constitution, Article XI, sec. 11). The second is
the so-called "home rule" section which applies to chartered cities
and gives them exclusive legislative authority "in respect to municipal
affairs" (California Constitution, Article XI, sections 6 and 8). The
third is the Planning and Zoning Act (California Government Code sec.
65100-907). The constitution and statues of Nevada contain similar
delegations of power to local government. There is serious question
whether any coherent pattern of land use control can be achieved within
the legal structure in which planning has traditionally been conducted
(See Bowden, "Opening the Door to Open Space Control",' Pacific Law
Journal, P. 461; especially the sections on the evolution of zoning,
p. 466 and zoning administration, p. 500).
Control of subdivision approvals is probably the most important local
land use control mechanism. In California there are two statutes
governing land subdivision: the Subdivision Map Act (California Business
and Professions Code, sec. 11500 et. seq.).
The purpose of the Map Act is to provide a uniform means of reviewing
and approving subdivision proposals submitted by landowners to cities
and counties. It requires each city and county to adopt an ordinance
outlining the procedures to be followed in reviewing and approving
a proposed subdivision. These local ordinances must be consistent with
the procedural requirements of the state statute. Under the Map Act
a subdivision is defined as the division of one parcel of land into
five or more parts. Before such a division may be permitted, the
subdivider must secure city or county approval of a map designating
new boundary lines, streets, etc. The statute does not guide local
government in setting policy with respect to the kind, amount, or
location of permitted subdivisions. The relationship between general
planning and subdivision, therefore, is a political rather than a legal
question.
In 1971, however, the law was amended to require, for the first time,
that subdivision approval be consistent with an adopted general plan
(California Business and Professions Code section 11526 (c)). This
requirement was strengthened in 1973 by an amendment which prohibits
141
-------
a city or county from amending its general plan more than three times
in one year (S. B. 594, California Statutes 1973, Chapter 120).
The second major statute governing subdivision in California is the
Subdivided Lands Act enacted in 1933. Unlike the Subdivision Map Act,
this statute is administered at the state level. It grants the State
Real Estate Commissioner wide powers over tbe marketing of subdivided
land. The most important of these powers is that requiring the
Commissioner to issue a financial report on any subdivision before lots
may be offered for sale to the public. The law applies to any sub-
division, whether in California or in another state, which is -marketed
in California. The purpose of this law is to protect purchasers from
the most common form of fraudulent land sale.
In recent years, several important amendments have been made to the
Subdivided Lands Act. In 1971, for example, Article 2.5, dealing
with "land project" provisions were designed to separate major
subdivisions, such as those commonly undertaken in second home or
recreational developments, from other forms of subdivision. A key
provision prohibits the Commissioner from issuing a public report on a
land project unless he makes a specific finding that the land project,
if carried out, would be consistent with existing or proposed zoning
for the area (California Business and Professions Code, sec. 11025(5)).
Nevada subdivision law is quite unlike that found in California, First,
Nevada does not police the sale of subdivided land. The only limit on
the resale of subdivided land is the requirement that the vendor first
secure approval of a final subdivision map. And while Nevada does have
a statute similar to the Subdivision Map Act, its provisions are
far less rigorous than those of the California statute. The Bureau of
Environmental Health does review all new subdivision proposals in
the Tahoe Basin to insure water supplies are not contaminated and
Water Pollution Regulations are not violated (Nevada State Division
of Health, 1958 Reg. #8).
As in California, the Nevada law defines a subdivision as the division
of one parcel into five or more parts. The law then carves out five
exceptions which seem to swallow the rule. Any division of land which
would otherwise qualify as a subdivision is expressly excluded from
the map approval procedures if it: 1) is less than five acres,
2) abuts an existing street, 3) does not require street widening,
4) has secured approval of the lot design by local government, or
5) is larger than ten acres but divided for agricultural purposes
(Nevada Revised Statutes 278.320).
Special districts
Special districts, like cities and counties, are governmental agencies
which draw their authority from state law. As the name implies, the
142
-------
power of special districts is limited. Unlike cities and counties
they are not general purpose local governments. This means for
example, that they may not enact such things as zoning or subdivision
ordinances. They may, however, condemn land for some purposes ente?
Since 1963 the formation of special districts in California has been
5,UA^Ct ^ the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission
• «r }! iCallfornia Government Code sec. 54773, et. seq.). Under the
LAFCo statute each county possesses its own commission, comprised of
representatives from the county board of supervisors, city councils
in the county, and a representative from the general public. The
central task of LAFCo is to limit the number of new districts formed
and to encourage districts to expand into contiguous areas rather than
leave pockets of skipped-over territory. Under the statute no district
may be formed or enlarged without LAFCo approval. The LAFCo has
similar powers with respect to city annexations.
Jlnh! l5*e-J950'. ^/arly 60's many districts were formed by second
home subdivides in order to provide urban services without investing
large sums of personal capital (Wood and Heller 1963). Often these
districts were formed by the subdivider and his employees. District
services were financed by general obligation bonds secured only by
the land in the subdivision. No permission was needed to form the
district and little supervision of its activities was exercised.
After the passage of the LAFCo statute in 1963, subdivides were less
free to use the district law in promoting a subdivision. There is some
doubt, however, whether the statutory change has caused a significant
change in the subdivider's promotion technique. Under current practice,
instead of forming a new district, the subdivider asks an existing
district to annex his land as an "improvement zone." An improvement
zone has nearly all of the legal powers of a district. It may, for
example, sell general obligation bonds which are secured— not by the
land in the original district-by the land in the subdivider's improve-
ment district.
Since an established district may annex an improvement district without
incurring any additional debt liability, there is little to deter it
from complying with the subdivider's proposal. And when the improve-
ment district sells its bonds, they are sold under the name of the parent
district Since the parent district has already established a credit
rating the subdivider's task of selling these bonds is eased.
The only check on this procedure is the county LAFCo. The Local
Agency Formation Commission Act, however, does not ask the LAFCo" to
consider the land use implications of a decision to permit an
annexation to a district. The only requirement in the law is that such
143
-------
an annexation be "logical" and "orderly." Most LAFCO's have interpreted
this to mean that an annexation to an existing district is preferable
to the creation of a new district. The law does not give LAFCo the
responsibility to achieve intergovernmental coordination of local
planning and district services.
The central weakness of the law, therefore, is its failure to deal
with the fact that the decisions made by a LAFCo have clear land use
implications. Thus the law fails to integrate LAFCo into the overall
planning process.
The statute is defective in another sense. It fails to guarantee
adequate staffing for each county LAFCo. While each LAFCo is an arm
of state government, it is wholly reliant upon county staff. In rural
counties such as El Dorado and Placer the LAFCo may have no staff.
Clearly a review body such as LAFCo can have little regulatory effect
if it must perform under such a serious disability.
In Nevada the power to form special district resides in the county
(N.R.S. Ch. 318.). Once created by the County Board of Commissioners,
however, the district's governing Board of Trustees is free of any
external regulation. It may annex any land it deems desirable and is
not compelled to recognize the planning or other policies of cities
or counties.
This freedom, however, is no longer accorded to Nevada's cities. In
1967 the Nevada Legislature created a City Annexation Commission (CAC)
in each county with a population of between 100,000 and 200,000
(N.R.S. 268.626.). In some ways the CAC is similar to California's
LAFCo. Each was created by state law; each functions at the county
level; each was designed to achieve similar results; and each is
composed of a similar membership. The central difference between LAFCo
and the CAC is that the Nevada agency lacks jurisdiction over special
districts.
This defect in the CAC has been partially ameliorated by Nevada's
public utility law. In 1971 the Nevada Legislature enacted the
Utility Environmental Protection Act (NRS 704.820 to 704.900). In
adopting this new statute the Legislature declared that "it is
essential ... to minimize any adverse effect upon the environment . . ,
which new (utility) facilities might cause . . . Existing provisions
of law may not provide adequate opportunity for individuals, groups
interested in conservation and the protection of the environment, state
and regional agencies, local governments and other public bodies to
participate in ... proceedings before the public service commission
of Nevada regarding the location and construction of major facilities."
(NRS 704.825.)
The statute, however, did far more than merely provide a forum for
those interested in ventilating their concerns. It began by defining
144
-------
the word "utility" in broad terms. Included in the word "utility"
are "sewer transmission and treatment facilities" (NRS 704 860) The
statute also provides that "no public utility shall after July 1 1971
commence to construct a utility facility . . . without first having '
obtained a permit therefore from the (Nevada Public Service)Commission"
(NRS 704.865).
Before the Public Service Commission can grant a permit the applicant
must submit a statement of "any studies which have been made of the
environmental impact of the facility" and a statement of need and a
description of the available alternatives (NRS 704.870). This language
is not altogether clear. The section does stop short of requiring
an environmental impact statement. It implies, however, that environ-
mental impacts should at least be considered in the application.
These applications are then reviewed by the governor's environmental
council and other interested parties. Following this review a hearing
is held on the application. Parties to the permit proceeding include,
among others, any domestic non-profit corporation or association formed
... to promote conservation ... to protect the environment ... to
preserve historical sites, to promote consumer interests, to represent
commercial and industrial groups, or to promote the orderly development
of the areas in which the facility is to be located." Also a party is
the governor s environmental council which is composed of virtually
?Mncy™!fa™r?fficial Cla1min9 any interest in environmental quality
(NRS 704.885).
No permit may be granted until the commission has determined, among other
things, the need for the facility, the probable environmental impact
resulting from it, and "that the facility represents the minimum adverse
environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and
the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other pertinent
considerations" (NRS 704.890). pertinent
The last quoted section could easily be read to emasculate the statute.
The language "considering . . . other pertinent considerations" seems
unnecessarily broad. The new sophistication implicit in this recognition,
as recent as it is, should give environmental planners a scintilla of
hope.
Bond Law
The most complex area of law in the field of local government is probably
that which regulates the sale of bonds. California and Nevada have
elaborate statutory provisions governing the sale, security and repayment
of capital bonds. The importance of these statutes should not be mini-
mized because the form of district capitalization plays a direct part
in regulating the spiral of self-perpetuated urban growth.
145
-------
A bond is nothing more than a promise to pay a specified debt at a fixed
time. In California local agencies may use one of three means to gener-
ate the capital needed to finance district services. These are:
general obligation bonds secured by the agency's taxing authority;
revenue bonds secured by the income generated by the facility built with
bond capital; and assessment bonds secured by either the individual
parcels of land benefiting from the service facility or by a redemption
fund backed by the aggregate of the land parcels benefiting from the
service provided by the new facility.
General obligation bonds require a popular vote because they may be
repaid through a special tax-rate levy. In case of default the bond
holder may compel the aaency to levy taxes necessary to retire the debt.
Revenue bonds are less secure than general obligation bonds because
they may only be retired from the income generated by the facility which
serves as security for the debt. If this revenue is insufficient to
repay the debt, the bond holder's remedy is to foreclose on the sewage
plant or other district facility. To resolve the difficulty of repaying
revenue bonds in the initial years of operation, California law permits
the district to levy a "stand by" charge against any parcel of land to
which the district's service has been made available whether it is
actually used or not. It is possible for these stand-by charges to be
levied against land which is not legally developable under local zoning.
Large areas of the Tahoe Basin which were formerly zoned for residential
purposes but which are now zoned "general forest" are subject to sewer
stand-by charges despite the fact that the service may not legally be
used. This creates pressure for changes in zoning which would permit
development. (Interview, Mr. William Layton, Tahoe City P.U.D.
director, June 1973.)
Assessment bonds are common in California's second home communities be-
cause they permit the developer to shift the burden of repayment to the
subsequent buyers of the subdivided land. There are three major stat-
utes governing assessment bonds: 1) the 1911 Act, 2) the 1913 Act, and
3) the 1915 Act. These statutes can best be described as labyrinthine.
The land-use consequences of this legal complexity has been summarized
by a veteran professional in these words: "Cow county supervisors are
bamboozled by flat-land bond attorneys who come before them with
second home development schemes wrapped in the secret jargon of the
bond law priesthood. Because politicians are reluctant to admit their
basic ignorance of bond law, these fast-talking lawyers are never
questioned very hard about the financial side of their projects."
(Interview, Tom Willoughby, Consultant to the California Legislature's
Committee on Local Government, July 24, 1973).
Nevada bond law is also complex, but like most aspects of Nevada law
it is much less so than its California counterpart. Two statues re-
gulate the sale and repayment of bonds (Local Government Securities
146
-------
Law, NRS 350.500-720 and the General Improvement District Law, NRS
Chapter oloj.
Districts may issue the following securities: short-term notes-
warrants and interim debentures; general obligation bonds; revenue
bonds; and special assessment bonds (NRS 318.275).
There are two kinds of general obligation bonds. One is secured by the
property tax; the other carries the additional security of a "pledqe
of and lien on net revenues." (NRS 318.325). Both forms of general
obligation bond require voter approval (NRS 318-290).
Revenue bonds are secured by "a pledge of and lien on" the net revenue
cUnL n u-k-*and -° not rec?u1re a Popular vote (NRS 318.320). The
statute prohibits using the proceeds of any district property tax as
security for revenue bonds (NRS 318.325).
fnrthphnnK.Tu ^ thfi 10tS ™* P9rCels °f
HpnncKJ Jni.« ' - ^6 ""ssments levied against these parcels is
deposited into a sinking fund. The district must levy a special pro
147
-------
APPENDIX C
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
In a recreational-based economy such as that at Lake Tahoe, it is
extremely difficult to make an accurate count of existing population
and even more difficult to predict future levels due to fluctuating
seasonal recreation uses (Environmental Sciences, Inc., 1963, p 27).
Since utility district must cope with peak demand periods, it is essential
that peak populations be both accurately measured and carefully projected
to provide data to guide wastewater districts in determining future
infrastructure needs.
In urban areas, population data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau at 10
year intervals provides adequate information on existing population
levels. Census data has not been disaggregated for the Tahoe Basin.
Permanent residents are counted relatively accurately by census methods
but seasonal residents, short-term visitors, and day users who together
make up the largest segment of peak population levels, are not. A
memorandum report issued in late 1971 by the California Department of
Water Resources reported,
There is no accurate up-to-date information on visitation
in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Actual counts of the number of
people present at one time throughout the year have not
been made since the 1948 investigation by the State Engineers
of California and Nevada. Therefore, figures for subsequent
historical peak season population and annual visitor-days
are estimates of unknown accuracy. (Turner 1971, no paging)
Due to this lack of accurate historical data describing the growth of
various sectors of the population, planners and consultants were forced
to use other means to formulate long-term population projections.
A discussion of the most important population projections made for the
Basin follows, including the methods used by consulting engineers to
determine wastewater system sizing and phasing. It is important to note
that these projections were used during the period of time that the
largest expenditures of public and private funds for wastewater facility
construction and expansion were made.
In a 1968 study for Incline Village GID, the consultants stated, "The
saturation population for the District, based on the '1963 Report,1 will
be about 48,000" (Clair Hill 1968, p C-2). "Based on a projected peak
population of 48,000 and 100 gallons per day per capita, ultimately sewage
flows from the District should reach at least 4.8 million gallons on
maximum days" (Clair Hill 1968, p E-l). After noting that other areas
adjacent to the district "may wish to avail themselves of sewerage
148
-------
service through the Incline system" (Clair Hill 1968, p E-l), the consul-
tants concluded, "A maximum daily flow of 4.8 to 5.5 million gallons
therefore appears to be reasonable for long-range planning" (Clair Hill
1968, p E-2). Their recommendation was that the treatment plant and
export system "provide for total flows of 3.0 mgd and be readily expand-
able to capacities of 5.5 mgd) (Clair Hill 1968,p £-2). The population
projection for Incline Village made in the comprehensive study by
Environmental Science, Inc. (ESI 1963), had a great influence on waste-
water management planning in that district.
In 1959, STPUD contracted with the consulting firm of Brown and Caldwell
to conduct a study of future population, land use and facility require-
ments for the STPUD "ultimate service area." The report states, "Because
the South Tahoe community is of relatively recent origin and is currently
developing at an exceptionally high rate, it is extremely difficult to
base population predictions on any of the so-called normal methods"
(Brown and Caldwell 1959, p 31). They made the attempt, however.
Since there were no local long-term statistics on which to base a 50
year population projection, the consultants found only four short-term
local indices to predict a high rate of population growth for the next
50 years. These indicators were:
Electrical service customers - 1947-57
Postal receipts of four Basin post offices - 1950-57
School enrollments - 1947-57
Vehicular traffic on Highway 50 - 1953-57
The report went on to state:
Taken together, all of the above listed factors reflect a
definite trend with respect to population development.
They indicate that the resident or permanent population
increased slowly but steadily during the first half of the
present decade. They further indicate that a greatly
accelerated rate of growth began in 1955 and that the
presently apparent trend is likely to continue for a good
many years. (Brown and Caldwell 1959, p 33)
Since 1957 was the last year for which information was available, the
"presently apparent trend" had lasted a total of three years. In
addition to growth rate, a population holding capacity or ultimate satura-
tion population had to be determined by predicting land use.
rl Dorado County was in the midst of formulating their first Master
.Ian for the South Tahoe area. The utility consultants, rather than
waiting for the county to complete its plan, proceeded to fabricate a
hypothetical land use plan on their own for the proposed bi-state
service area.
149
-------
The report projects urban-type land uses for 97% of the developable
land within the proposed ultimate district boundaries, including many
hundreds of acres of US Forest Service lands The Table C-l shows the
figures used to calculate the predicted saturation population of the
STPUD service area.
Land classification
High density residential
Medium density residential
Low density residential
Commercial
Public lands
Recreational
Unhabitable lands
Total
Area,
acres
5,340
10,450
9.480
1,410
360
470
2,330
29,840
High estimate
Unit .
density"
16
10
4
60
10
0
0
Total
85,000
104,000
38,000
85,000
4.000
.
-
316,000
Low estimate
Unit ,
density"
8
3
2
45
10
0
0
Total
43,000
31,000
19,000
63,000
4,000
-
-
160,000
Average esMnpU
Unit .
density
12
7
3
52
10
0
-
Total
64,000
73,000
29,000
73,000
4.000
-
-
243,000
Table C-l Predicted Saturation Population of Service Area
Source: Brown and Caldwell 1959, p. 35.
A brief examination of the above table indicates that the protection
of environmental quality was of marginal importance in assigning land
use categories to undeveloped lands. There was no mention in the
study of increased erosion caused by residential development of
steep lands, with the attendant deleterious effect on water quality of
the lake. No mention was made of the decreased recreational suitability
of the area due to over-crowding, visual degradation, loss of public
access and the almost complete loss of open space in close proximity to
the lake. The composite of assumptions used by Brown and Caldwell to
formulate their land use plan seems to clash with a basic assumption of
the study—that the area would continue to function on a predominately
recreational economy. The loss of these scenic amenities could well
have ended the spiral ing growth of the Basin before development reached
the level predicted by this study.
This lack of concern for environmental quality quality issues is also
evident in assumptions and criteria used in the 1961 study by the Real
Estate Research Corp. for the Basinwide 1980 Regional Plan Program, and
the 1963 study by Engineering Sciences, Inc.for the Lake Tahoe Area
150
-------
Council. The 1980 Plan study described three possible directions that
future development in the Basin could take. The alternative selected
to form the basic foundation of the 1980 plan was described in the
plan as follows:
Progression to a Developed, Urban Economy
... The values of the resident population whose primary concern
is commercial development within the region are stressed.
The scenic quality of the environment is regarded as a
function of profit. This alternative gives greater weight
to economic growth rather than to aesthetic conservation."
(Wilsey et al» 1963, p. 36).
An attitude where "the scenic quality of the environment is regarded as
a function of profit" definitely puts environmental quality concerns
behind economic growth concerns. This 1980 plan projecting 313,000
peak summer residents by 1980 was based on the assumption that any
activity necessary to encourage, accommodate or accelerate population
growth (highway and freeway construction to improve access; sewer, water
and power facility expansion to allow increased housing densities;
land trades to allow private development of public lands administered
by the US Forest Service) would be done (Wilsey et al 1963, p. 15).
The 1963 study of ESI was the most influential Basinwide study. The
study included the first estimated costs of sewage export. The report
shows little concern for environmental resources, however. The lack of
a sufficient water supply to support the ultimate projected populations
entered into calculations of the impact of exporting sewerage:
Water use and hydrologic studies of the Truckee River
Basin have led to the general conclusion that there is in-
sufficient water to meet all probable future demands, hence
the Basin is considered a water deficient area. Based on a
total Basin water allocation of 34,000 acre feet, a DWR
estimate that 70% of total water consumed would be returned
as sewage flow, and assumed export of all effluents from
the Basin, it was calculated that in dry years such as 1931
and 1932, there would be no flow in the Truckee River at Tahoe
City . . . (ESI 1963, Section VII)
This acknowledged limitation to population growth was ignored in formu-
lating and projecting future population growth in the study, however.
Figure C-l illustrates the most important projections of peak summer
population and ultimate saturation population made over.a 24-year.
period. A clear trend is shown toward higher peak summer/ultimate
saturation populations until 1971, when the land capability-based TRPA
plan was adopted. The environmental constraint criteria used by TRPA
151
-------
POP xlOOO
TRPA. PI nn
Figure C - I: CCHPARISON OF ULTIMATE/SATURATION POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. ZOO.OOO by 1998, Department of Hater Resources in "Joint Report
on the Use of Hater in the Lake Tahoe Watershed", June, 1949.
Z, 449,700 at saturation, Department of Mater Resources in "Lake
Tahoe Population and Mater Use Survey", April, 1957.
3. 398,000 at saturation, Department of Water Resources 1n "Estim-
ated Future Hater Requirements" Lake Tahoe Basin", August, 1959.
4. 596,000 by 2010, Engineering-Science, Inc for the Lake Tahoe
Area Council in "Comprehensive Study on the Protection of Water
Resources of Lake Tahoe Basin Through Controlled Haste Disposal"
June. 1963.
5. 475,400 by 2010, Engineering-Science. Inc for the Lake Tafioe Area
Council 1n "A Regional Program for the Protection of Water Resources
in the Lake Tahoe-Truckee River Basin", 1967.
6. 648,100 holding capacity, Department of Water Resources based on
"1956 Land Classification Survey" 1n a report.by Central District
office dated January 19, 1970.
7. £83,960 In 2010, Nevada Division of Hater Resources, cited In
Raymond H. Smith, "Nevada Tahoe General Plan", January. 1970.
8. 644,000 in 2020, Department of Water Resources, Central District
August, 1970.
9. 266.000 at saturation, Eckba, Dean, Austin ! Williams fn prelim-
inary work on "Tahoe Population Estimates and Projections", for
TRPA, June, 1972.
10. 236.7(30 to 290.350 by 1090-2000. Economic Research Associates in
"Regional Housing Element Update" for IRPA, December, 1972.
152
-------
in the formulation of their land use plan significantly lowered the
ultimate peak populations predicted by earlier studies. If environmental
quality had been included among the factors used to determine the
earlier population projections, the disparity between these projections
and the TRPA projections would be considerably smaller.
153
-------
APPENDIX D
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
In seeking to establish quantitative relationships between land develop-
ment and wastewater management, selected statistical tests were ap-
plied to the data sets expressing these two activities. Section VI
provided a summary of the statistically significant results of these
tests. However it is useful to discuss some areas where tests re-
sults imply important relationships but were not statistically signi-
ficant, and thus suggest areas for further research.
This appendix provides such a discussion, and is organized around three
statistical tests: correlations, factor analysis, and linear regres-
o I U11 •
Correlation_
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients measure the degree of
relationship between pairs of variables. These coefficients range be-
tween -1 through 0 to +1; a correlation of zero indicates an independence
Detween two phenomena, while a high correlation indicates a linear
relationship, i.e., one variable increases as the other increases(posi-
tive correlation) or one increases as the other decreases (negative cor-
relation). If the value of the coefficient passes the significance
level (a function of the sample size and chosen confidence level), the
hypothesis of linear independence between the two variables is rejected.
It is possible to determine the statistical significance of the dif-
ference between two correlations, however the difference between
coefficients would have to be very large for a small sample size. Al-
though our calculated coefficients range from .40 to .99, it is only
possible to classify them into three actual categories—significantly
positive, significantly negative, or zero—due to the small number of
observations (ranging from 5-23).
Initially, fifteen variables were selected for computation of Pearson's
Correlation Coefficients. These variables were selected to reflect
five categories: land use, wastewater management, tourism, population
and market influences. The following discussion examines the results
of a county by county analysis.
El Dorado County--(Table D-l) The 105 discrete correlation coefficients
are all statistically significant with a high percentage significant at
the .001 level. Two important observations should be made: all correla-
tions indicate a positive relationship; and the small sample size
154
-------
(years of observation) prohibits differentiation of strengths between
variables. In sum, the correlation matrix merely indicates the entire
array of variables has a significantly positive relationship.
While it is true that all the factor quantities have increased during
the 23-year period, it is nevertheless surprising that the entire array
is significantly related. The nature of this positive relationship may
indicate future difficulty in determining the specific structure of the
relationships.
Placer County—(Table D-2) Of the 105 iterations in the Placer County
matrix, only one negative correlation appears (wastewater flows with
prime interest rate) although the significance level is not statistical-
ly valid. With this exception the same observations hold as for those
cited for El Dorado County.
Douglas County~(Table D-3) No important differences were observed in
the Douglas County coefficients. The five coefficients which are not
statistically significant all involve permanent population figures which
contain data gaps thus providing a likely explanation for a lack of
correlation.
Washoe County—(Table D-4) Of particular note is the coefficient for
the Incline Village GID service area. Since the district size has re-
mained the same since its formation in 1962, it is the only variable
which has remained constant and no coefficient could be computed for
the variable. In addition, the other two wastewater variables failed
to have statistical significance in a number of cases. Eight variables
failed to produce a significant correlation with average daily flow:
building permits for multiple units, subdivision lot approvals, plant
capacity, traffic, skier days, permanent population, primary market area
and prime interest rate. The lack of correlation with average daily
flow may be attributed to the fact that only five yearly observations
are available for flow data. Plant capacity fails to correlate sig-
nificantly with permanent population and prime interest rate; in this
case the quality of data may explain the lack of significance in the
coefficients.
Summary—With the exceptions noted above, all land use, wastewater
management, tourism, population, and market influence variables show
a strong positive relationship. The constraints imposed by the statis-
tically small number of observations seriously limit the interpreta-
tion of the results, and no internal statistical differentiation is
possible.
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis is a statistical method for detecting underlying fac-
tors or characteristics in a group of variables. Those variables
155
-------
Ul
-iagxe Faally Building Permlta
Multiple 7t3lly Building Pernit
~.;tiiv:si',c Lot Approvals
Asj«sssi a::in; Revenues
wcier Da/i
satin Perna-ent Population
County Percanent Population
rijf.-atlcn Projection! (Basin)
Pritary Market
Prlne Interest Rat*
lit Faaily
.ling Peralti
a -H
n m
1.00
.98
.9"*
.99
• 76
.65
.97
.71.
-98
.90
.99
.93
.98
.98
.6>»
m
x«>
•H -1
-« a
a t.
« «
u, P.
« »
a.
to t
1.00
.98
.91
• 98
.90
.93
.88
.97
.98
.79
.99
.98
.89
<0
•
n
« V
M
1.00
.89
.99
-91.
.68
.99
.93
.99
.90
.99
• 99
.81
>»
4»
•r*
4' U
a p.
PL. U
1.00
• 93
.65
.76
.88
• 89
.88
• 51*
• 91
.8li
.86
«
o
*4
h V
W «<
1.00
.60
.63
.90
.92
• 90
• 6?
.91
.88
.79
h
rH
•H
«
Q
«
M
«
• O
-
O K
1.00
.9".
.98
.86
.99
.98
.7U
. h
•< >»
V3 1=1
1.00
• 89
.72
.96
.95
.71
n Permanent
ilatlon
n o*
m a.
1.00
.9>i
.98
.98
.68
ity Permanent
ilatlon
3 P.
u e.
1.00
.85
.68
.67
ilatlon
ectlons (Baoln)
a. o
f. e.
1.00
-90
• T8 '
>,
i. *A
0 «
~< U
e. X
1.00
• 7k
ne Interest
-^ «>
&. c;
Table 0-1: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS — EL DORADO COUNTY
-------
Single Family Building Permits
Multiple Faaily Building Permit!
Subdivision Lot Approvals
Assessed Value
"last Capacity
Tervioe Area
Average tally Flow
:..:.:.-.<; Revenues
."icier fays
Lasin permanent Population
Jcuzty Permanent Population
"cr-liticn Projections (Basin)
Frinry Market
?ri=.e Interest Rate
Single Family
Building Permits
1.00
.89
.96
.97
.77
.98
.78
.97
.99
.9k
.96
.97
.99
.98
.6k
K4>
l-l ft
fi a
9S
b, ft.
«l U
IH a
P.-*
»< -a
+J r-t
1-1 ft
3 3
X »
1.00
.79
.96
.96
.93
.75
• 91
.93
.82
.77
.95
.87
.83
.57
Subdivision Lot
Approvals
1.00
.9k
.68
.8U
• 65
.97
.96
.95
.98
.9k
.96
.99
.89
Asseaaed
Value
1.00
.8k
.9k
.70
.97
.98
.91
.92
.99
.96
.9k
.82
Plant
Capacity
1.00
.83
.62
.76
.75
.67
.61
.81
.65
.70
.57
Service
Area
1.00
.65
.89
• 92
.96
.79
.9k
.89
.93
.77
Average Daily 1
Flow
1.00
.6k
.76
.62
.7k
.7k
.71
• 69
-.08
Traffic
Voluae
1.00
• 97
.91
.97
• .98
.97
• 97
.88
V
M 9
o a
ft «
B >
« «
O K
1.00
.92
.96
.98
.98
.96
.72
h
f> K
X *
to a
1.00
.92
.92
.96
.96
.76
Basin Pertinent
Population
1.00
.93
.98
.98
.88
County Permanent
Population
1.00
.98
.95
.73
Population
Projections (Basin)
1.00
.99
.76
Primary
Market
1.00
.7k
\
C
+*
C -
M
tl
s • ;
C-. K
l.CO
Table 0 - 2: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS -- PLACER COUNTY
-------
Oi
00
single raniljr Building Permits
Multiple Family Building Permit!
Subdirlsion Lot Approvals
[Assessed Value
j: iar.v Capacity
,"*rvlje Arc*
Averege Tilly Flew
Traffic Vslu=e
ji-'.-z Seveaues
i/.ier Days
ri*ii Percanent Population
County Permanent Population
:\Tal«tica Prcjectlona (Basin)
?ri=ary Market
?rir.e Ir.terest Rate
•
«i
«4
NB
t-« »«
i V
HO,
*
fr, M
a
•i «
<-( «
C «4
v* m
1.00
.98
.92
.96
.78
.68
.95
.7.2
.98
• 91
.90
.91.
• 98
-99
.69
•
KO
rl *•
•H a
Si:
m fe
v to
tH a
O.T)
^
•rt 0
X> A
M-<
1.00
-97
.SO
.87
-79
.92
• 97
.91.
-97
.96
• 97
• 9k
.86
•a
•
•
• •
M ^1
•« >
1.00
.86
.95
.86
.72
.98
.97
.9"*
• 91
.99
• 98
.71
K
4»
*4
4> O
« A
ft. 0
1.00
.91
.66
.58
.76
.89
.71
• 78
.79
.81(
.79
•
o
*4
U Cl
CO ^
1.00
.80
.71
.69
• 97
.81.
• 77
.90
• 92
.82
K
iH
vl
«
a
•
u
«
« o
•< K
1.00
.87
.89
.80
• 97
.80
.89
.92
.63
V
*• •
S§
« r4
t-« r»
1 .00
.86
.69
.93
• 53
.85
.72
.82
•
•
M a
a e
e >
O K
1.00
• 9k
.98
• 93
.99
.98
.7k
h
•*• K
• Interest
»
•« •*
e.s
1.00
Table D - 3t CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS -- DOUGLAS COUNTY
-------
\O
Single Family Building Permits
Multiple Faaily Building Permit!
Subdivision Lot Approvals
Ass-ssei Value
riar.t. Capacity
Service Area
Average Daily Flow
Traffic Volu=e
-•srlr-g Sevenaes
if.ier Hays
iaain "Pereanent Population
Jcusxy Permanent Population
S^F-ilation Projections (Basin)
"rinary Market
Frite Ir.terea*. Kate
•
4*
1*4
H fl
t-l t<
-I «l
go.
h, to
a
«
d a
>H V
n
O K
1.00
.92
.96
.79
.98
-96
.72
41 •
Sfr
can
1.00
.92
.89
.96
.96
.76
Basin Permaneat
Population
1.00
.86
.98
.98
.88
County Permanent
Population
1.00
.8U
.85
.58
Population
Projections (Saaln)
1.00
.99
.79
Primary
Market
1.00
.7".
4*
•
«
b
0
*>
e
M
tt
e •
•* *»
k mt
C. K
I. 00
7able D - 4: CORRELATION COEFF1CIEN7S — HASHOE COUNTY
-------
which share common variance and therefore are assumed to be related
are grouped together under one factor. By reducing a cluster of
related variables into one theoretical construct (a factor) the re-
searchers can then deal with fewer measures in further analysis. This
grouping will also demonstrate relationships that may not be evident
from the original correlation matrices.
The large number of variables which exhibit strong positive correlations
in the land development process suggest the application of factor analy-
sis to reduce the number of variables and cluster those which tend to
vary as a group. The fifteen variables selected for correlation analy-
sis were initially entered into the SPSS factor analysis routine with-
out designating the number of desired factors. The number of factors
generated ranged from four in Washoe County to one in Douglas County,
however the clusters of variables determined did not suggest any
logical structure.
A second set of factor matrices was subsequently computed with a pre-
designation of six factors. The resulting clusters of variables again
proved inconclusive for further analytical purposes. Table D-5 in-
dicates the relative strength and composition of this second set of
factors.
f
1
•Q
— 1
Of
,
I
LU .
§
i
J
Wastewater Service
Area t
Prime Interest Rate
Prime Interest Rate
Permanent Popula-
tion >•
Wstewater ToUT
Flows
astewater Daily
Flows
ulldfng Pennits--
Stngle Foully
ubdi vision
Approvals
enunent Popula-
tion
astewater Service
Area
2
Traffic
1
West water Service
'Area ....
Wastewater Assess-
ment Are*
Prime Interest Rat
.- * j
•
Skier Days
Wastewater Cost
FACTOR
3
Uastewater Assess-
ment Area
Building Permits—
Multlple
Assessed Valuation
Plant Capacity
Traffic
•
•Wastewater Plant
Capacity
Prlne Interest
Rate
—
4
Wastewater Plant
Capacity
Wastewater Service
Area
•Total Flows
Skier Days
Wastewater Servlc
Area
Skier Days
Wastewater Service
Area
Wastewater Dally
Flow
- -
5
Permanent
Population
Wastewater Dally
Flows
•Wastewater
Service Area
Building Permits-
Multiple & M/H
Uastewater Plant
Capacity
Building Permits—
Multiple & M/H
Assessed Valuation
Projected Popula-
tion
Wastewater Service
Area
Primary Market
6
Subdivision
Approvals
Gaming Revenues
Skier Days
Population Projec-
tion
•Permanent Popula-
tion
Bunding PermJtS"
Sfngle Family
Subdivision
Approvals
Permanent Popula-
tion
Projected Popula-
tion
Primary '.'xrVft
Subdivision
Approvals
Assessed Valuation
Naming Revenues
projected Popula-
tion .
Building Permlts-
M/H
Gaming Revenues
Wastewater Total
Flows
•Negative Influence
Table D-'j SUMMARY OF FACTOR ANALYSIS (Factors above .30 level)
160
-------
Linear Regression
Stepwise Multiple Regressions determine which variables best explain or
predict the variation in others. In the SPSS procedure, the first in-
dependent variable to enter the prediction equation has the highest
correlation with the dependent variable. The remaining independent
variables are entered one at a time in an order such that each step
maximizes the explained variation. Thus when all variables with sig-
nificant contributions to the prediction equation have been entered,
their ordering theoretically shows a hierarchy of .importance in the
explanation of variation in the dependent, or predicted variable. At
each step an F statistic is calculated to test the significance of
variation accounted for at that step (R^). This statistic is then com-
pared to a table of the F distribution under the appropriate number of
degrees of freedom (a function of the number of variables already in
the equation and the number of observations, or years, on which the
equation is based). Positive correlations cannot be distinguished from
one another using small sample sizes, and if these are the basis of the
multiple regression steps, the resulting prediction equation is in-
determinate.
Through the use of linear regression, the degree of dependence between
variables can be determined, and causality can be inferred if the
independent variable clearly precedes the dependent variable in time.
Using county-specific data, regression equations were calculated for
selected dependent variables. Since reliable time series data were
limited to El Dorado and Placer Counties, regression equations were
computed for only these two units.
The following data constituted the dependent variables not discussed in
Section VI: wastewater treatment plant flows, wastewater service dis-
trict area, subdivision lot approvals, building permits issued, popula-
tion projections (from 1980 Plant prepared in 1963), and primary market
population. (These dependent variables provide measures of wastewater
management, land use, and exogenous factors.)
The following discussions are based on Tables D-6 and D-7 which summar-
ize the results of the stepwise regressions for El Dorado and Placer
Counties respectively. (Note: These Tables contain only the sequence
and R2 coefficient of determination for variables with statistical
significance.)
Wastewater flows
Building permits constitute the only significant R^ in explaining
treatment plant flows, thus indicating that single family building
permits at the North Shore, and total building permits at the South
Shore are the best indicators of increased flows.
161
-------
IB
o1
ro
»
ro
co
t-*
09
a
• H-
1 -,
O
P
a
c+
p
ct
•
O
H
C
a
M
n
v>
M
D
O
d-
A
PL.
(V
0
1
o\
M tfl
t-1 a
s
a s
0 >
td td
> K
O
0 0
o
^D C/)
C 1-3
a w
1-3 *O
h^ |
^
l-l
W
M
bd
0
M
Pd
en
OS
H
0
S3
td
JO
G
M
0
2
K)
1
DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
Treatment Plant
Total Yearly Flov
Subdivision
Approvals
Total Building
Permits
STPUD Service
District Area
Population
Projection —
I960 Plan
Primary Market
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND E2
Step 1
Total
Building (.96
Permits
Gross
Gaming • ( .9!* ]
Revenues
Plant
Yearly (.96)
Flow
Gross
Gaming (.86)
Revenues
Subdivision
Approval (.97)
Subdivision
Approval ( .97)
Step 2
STPUD Service
District (.98)
Area
Treatment
Plant (.98)
Capacity
STPUD
Service ( .98)
District
Treatment
Plant • (.91)
Capacity
rotal
Building (.99)
Permits
Step 3
Plant
Yearly (.99)
Flow
Subdivision
Approval (.93)
•
Step U
-------
*
n
ro
la
o n
t->- a
n M-
p n
c+ a
cf
P
c
a
H
ID
ta
M
a
o
n
p-
P
o"
H
n
O
I
•xJ CQ
f C
o S
o
o o
s>
« CO
H
CO
0
CO
CO
w
I
I
DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
NTPUD and TCPUD
Average Daily
Flows
NTPUD and TCPUD
Service Area
Population
Projection --
1980 Plan
Primary Market
Subdivision
Approvals
Single Family
Building Permits
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND E2
Step 1
Single Family
Building (.78)'
Permits
Perman'ent
Popula- (.90)
tion
NTPUD & TCPUD
Service ( .96)
Area
NTPUD & TCPUD
Service ( .96)
Area
Permanent
County ( .88)
Population
Traffic
Volume (.98)
Step 2
Ski Days--
North (.96)
Shore
Traffic
Volume (.98)
Subdivision
Approval ( . 98 )
Multiple Family
Motel/ (.9M
Hotel Building
Permits
Step 3
HTPUD & TCPUD
Plant (.98)
Capacity
NTPUD & TCPUD
Plant (.99)
Capacity
Traffic
Volume (.97)
Step 1+
Single Family
Building (.99)
Permits
-------
Wastewater Service
Annexations to service districts are statistically explained by 1) gross
gaming revenues, 2) treatment plant capacity, and 3) subdivision lot
approvals in the south; and 1) permanent population, 2) skier days,
and 3) plant capacity in the north.
Subdivision Lot Approvals
Gross gaming revenues provide the initial regression variables in El
Dorado County, followed by plant capacity; while in Placer County the
first step variable is permanent population and the second step variable
is multiple and motel/hotel building permits. The contrast between the
two counties may indicate that El Dorado County subdivision activity
is stimulated by the South Shore gaming (either through direct economic
activity or through high visitor days), and Placer County subdivision
activity reflects demand through population and construction. This
in turn may indicate a stronger regulation of land use in Placer County
in contrast with El Dorado County's implicit support of extensive land
speculation.
Building Permits
Wastewater management variables enter the first two steps of the regres-
sion equation for El Dorado County building permits. Treatment plant
yearly flow is the first step variable (R2 = .96) with STPUD service
district contributing .02 for an R2 of .98 after two steps. In Placer
County only one variable, traffic volume, enters the regression, contri-
buting a .98R2 as the initial variable.
The relationship in El Dorado County between building permits and waste-
water flows would normally be expected. However, the relationship be-
tween building permits and traffic volume in Placer County may indicate
a high number of seasonal residents and short-term visitors.
Population Projections
It is clear from the research described in Appendix C that population
projections have played a central role in wastewater management facility
planning at Lake Tahoe. Therefore, a regression equation has been com-
puted using as a dependent variable the population projection developed
by Wilsey, Ham and Blair for the 1980 Regional Plan (prepared in 1963).
El Dorado County—Subdivision approvals are the primary step variable,
resulting in a .98 coefficient of determination. The contribution of
sequential variables is extremely small although statistically signifi-
cant (gaming revenues, wastewater management plant capacity, and waste-
water flows follow in the subsequent steps). Since subdivision approvals
at Lake Tahoe are in considerable excess of actual demand (30,000 vacant
lots), one could argue that population projections were not accurate
projections of demand, but rather influences contributing to an over-
supply of subdivided land.
164
-------
Placer County—Significant differences are again apparent between the
two case study counties. Wastewater service area, traffic, and treat-
ment plant capacity are the first three variables in the North Shore
equation, resulting in a coefficient of determination of .99 in the
third step. The absence of subdivision approvals and the appearance of
two wastewater measures in the first three regression steps indicates
a totally different response to population projections between the
North and South Shores. From the results of the regression it would
appear that the expansions of wastewater management facilities were
considerably influenced by high population projections.
Primary Market Population
As anticipated, subdivision approvals are first and second step varia-
bles in the primary market equations; total building permits follow
subdivision approvals in El Dorado County, and service area growth pre-
cedes subdivision approvals in Placer County.
165
-------
APPENDIX E
LAND USE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SETS
This appendix is an index to the time-series data sets and the reporting
units which were used in the quantitative analysis section of this re-
port. It is presented here to provide background information for the
reader. Actual data are compiled in a supplementary appendix.
1. Subdivision Approvals—County
a. single family residential (lots)
b. multiple family residential (units)
c. cumulative (lots)
2. Building Permits—County
a. single family residential (permits)
b. motel/hotel (units)
c. multiple family (units)
d. cumulative, each category above (permits or units)
e. total (units)
f. cumulative total (units)
3. Housing Units—County
a. single family residential (units)
b. motel/hotel (units)
c. multiple family residential (units)
d. total (units)
4. Assessed Valuation—County (dollars)
5. Treatment Plant Capacities—Wastewater Management District (gallons)
6. District Annexations—Wastewater Management District (acres)
7. Assessment District Size—Wastewater Management District (acres)
8. Total Service Area—Wastewater Management District (acres)
9. Recorded Plant Flows—By Wastewater Management District
a. average daily flow (gallons)
b. total yearly flow (gallons)
166
-------
10. Capital Costs—Wastewater Management District
a. federal ( dollars)
b. state (dollars)
c. local (dollars)
d. cumulative for each category above ( dollars)
11. Gaming Revenues—County (dollars)
12. Vehicles Entering Tahoe Basin
a. Highways 50, 89, 19, 27 (average vehicles per day)
13. Recreation Activity—North Shore; South Shore
a. skier days (user days)
b. outdoor recreation (user days)
14. Utility Customers, South Shore
a. electrical services (service connections)
b. telephones (service connections)
c. STPUD (service connections)
15. Population—County
a. permanent (persons)
b. seasonal (persons)
c. peak (persons)
16. Total Basin Population
a. permanent (persons)
b. seasonal (persons)
c. peak (persons)
17. Peak Population Projections—Total Basin
a. 1980 Plan; 1963 (persons)
b. ESI; 1963 (persons)
c. Ray Smith; 1973 (persons)
18. Primary Market Area (families)
19. Prime Interest Rate (percent)
167
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Accession No.
w
4. Title
Influences of Wastewater Management on Land Use:
Tahoe Basin 1950-1972
7. Autlw(s)
James E. Pepper and Robert Jurgenson
University of California
Santa Cruz, California
10.
l No
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-1842
1ro i' '
15. supplementary Notes Environmental Protection Agency ~'"
Report NO..EPA-600/5-74-019, October 1971*
w. Ab.i»ct statistical analysis Indicates that wastewater Infrastructure projects have
had a significant Influence on the land use pattern In the Lake Tahoe Basin. Land use
densities have Increased Immediately following the expansion of plant capacities 1n
areas serviced by three of the four major wastewater treatment facilities. The sub-
division approval rate of raw land was also foufld to be a function of anticipated
treatment capacity. Federal and state water quality agencies played an active and
central role 1n wastewater management programs designed to remove the threat of water
pollution at Lake Tahoe. Cooperation among all levels of government led to expeditious
resolution of the water quality problem In spite of the numerous geographic, economic
and political constraints 1n the region. However, the provision of sewerage
facilities also removed land development constraints. Local governments, acting
without coordinated land use policies, permitted Intensive land uses which could ott
have occurred with septic tank treatment. These Increases In land use have sub-
sequently produced major environmental problems 1n the Tahoe Basin. Thus, the
singular focus on water quality led touunforeseen environmental Impacts resulting from
the land use changes made possible by the provision of extensive sewerage systems.
"This report was submitted 1n fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-1842 under the .
sponsorship of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency."
17u. Descriptors
17b. Idenliiitis
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Land Use
17c. COWRR 1'iclcl & Group
1 8. Availability
UTTC
n>19
19.- Security Qtst,
2ft, jSeoatty Claw.
^ At (Page)
Send To:
WATCH MOOURCU SCIKNTIPIC INFORMATION CKNTM
US. MMMTMCNT Of TUB INTIMIOH
WAMINOTON. DA. tOt4O
Abs
tractor Harold V. Klbby
institution
Environmental Protection Agency
WRSIC 102 (REV. JUNE 19711
G P O 488435
------- |