LAKE TAHOE and#8212; In a Sunday editorial, the Sacramento Bee questioned if the and#8220;era of cooperationand#8221; is over at Tahoe.
The question itself seems to set up a negative and adversarial answer. It doesnand#8217;t help that the editorial goes on to say the chances are slim of California and U.S. legislators agreeing to the terms of a recent Nevada bill to change the structure of the lakeand#8217;s governance.
and#8220;Two-thirds of the lake is in California. Nevada funds one-third and California two-thirds of the cost for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Why would California agree to Nevadaand#8217;s proposed changes? This is a no-go,and#8221; the editorial states.
Hopefully this attitude is not indicative of the mindset of many Californians and U.S. lawmakers. The reality is Nevadaand#8217;s Senate Bill 271 passed and was signed into law. At this point, the state is on a course to withdraw from the two-state compact that governs Lake Tahoe by 2015.
There is no wall in the middle of Lake Tahoe that divides the waters between the two states. What Nevada does affects California and vice versa.
Lake Tahoe needs a unified governance that can pursue policy that is in the interest of both states. Separating Tahoe between Nevada and California would only hurt what people often say they care most about and#8212; the lake.
So far, only one local lawmaker, Sen. Ted Gaines, has said reforms to the TRPA compact could be part of his next legislative package.
Now is the time for those who represent, work, play and live at Lake Tahoe to support unity.
The editorial in the Sacramento Bee concluded with the sentence, and#8220;Honest dialogue and#8212; not ultimatums and#8212; is the only road forward.and#8221;
That sentiment works both ways.