Postings from the SLPOA forum

A SORRY HISTORY OF PROTECTING WATER QUALITY

I thought, in light of Royal Gorge LLC's water procurement problems, this letter of Mike Livak's, written when he was working for Squaw's expansion ,might prove instructive. Further, in the past month there have been serious water complaints about Squaw Creek. I'll cut and paste that article in when I find it again

****************

From: Michael Livak

Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:10 PM

To: cathy.poncabare

Cc: tom.sheehy@sen.ca.gov

Subject: Squaw Valley SKi Corp CPR public comment

Dear Ms. Poncabare:

Following, find the presentation I plan to make at the CPR meeting this Friday during public comment. I timed it and it takes exactly 3 minutes- the bold type indicates segments of audio recorded from the Lahontan Board meeting which I will play into the microphone from a portable cassette player that I will bring with me.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony in written form, and to get it to the commissioners and on the record.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Mike Livak

Public Comment:

Hello, my name is Mike Livak. I would like to testify regarding lack of accountability and due process demonstrated by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, in order to support the CPR report recommendation to transfer the Regional Boards' duties to an integrated Environmental Protection Department which would report to the governor. I noticed that the first point in chapter 6 in the Performance Review document states "The current framework for environmental regulation lacks accountability." That's true, and the continued existence of these Regional Boards, composed of part- time appointees who answer to no-one, and who sometimes conduct business without any regard for due process, cannot effectively serve the people of California.

For example, I recently attended a public "hearing" conducted by the Lahontan Board regarding referral of the company I work for to the California Attorney General.

Regional Board staff prepared a demonstrably false report supporting the referral. Although staff spent over one year preparing that report, only a portion of it was provided to me less than 10 days before the hearing. Because Regional Board policy is that written materials must be submitted a minimum of 10

days before hearings, Regional Board counsel recommended that the Board decline to accept my written rebuttal to the staff report. Then, Regional Board staff made an hour-long PowerPoint presentation, and one of the Board members openly stated his conclusion before hearing my testimony regarding the numerous inaccuracies of the staff report and presentation

Clip 1 content- Lahontan Board member states "I mean, all this to me just says lock the place up and shut it down and stop. Don't do it anymore."

Thereafter, I introduced myself to the Board and I was informed that I would have no opportunity to address the Board despite the fact that due process and the agenda itself provided for my rebuttal testimony. Board members apparently wanted to depart the meeting early to catch airplane flights without hearing the evidence

Clip 8 content Lahontan Board Chair states: "Um, the problem is that, uh, we're about to lose a quorum and um, you know, uh... several board members feel that they have enough information with which to decide on the specific issue which is before us, whether or not to refer to the Attorney General"

Only intervention by our state legislator's field representative allowed me to speak at all in this public hearing (play clip10).

Clip 10 Field Representative states: "All we ask is a fair hearing... after all, you cannot act without any accountability...this is supposed to be a fair hearing, and I hope that you would allow the testimony"

Subsequently, I was permitted to speak for about 10 minutes in response to staff's hour-long presentation, when I was again interrupted (play clip 14).

Clip 14 content Board Chair states: I'm not trying to rush you, I'm just telling you that –that- you know, I'm really getting the sense that-that this is not affecting what we think. It's not helping me at all."

I offer this testimony to clarify accountability problems with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, which were in this instance manifested by a total disregard for due process in a public hearing.

Ironically, the CA AG did file a case against the company at Lahontan's insistence but recently dropped allegations that ANY harm to water quality (the thrust of Lahontan's jurisdiction) has occurred as a result of the company's actions.

At the most recent Lahontan Board meeting I attended, different Board members inquired of Board staff on at least three occasions during the first hour "how long is this meeting going to last" or "how long do we have to stay here tomorrow?"

The CA Regional Boards, which are accountable to no one, should be disbanded and their functions should be undertaken by true professionals employed by an integrated Environmental Protection Department as recommended in the California Performance Review document.

Thank you.

*********************

I was stricken by the disrespect to a legal board, and as lack of available water sources is such a deal-killing issue for Royal Gorge LLC, we should be sensitive to possible techniques of manipulation. And, here's a little hint from me- read between the lines real hard. And, by the way, Squaw Valley was referred to the California Attorney General for repeated and flagrant disregard of water quality standards.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

And how are things working out for the Squaw valley residents after Squaw's expansion-maybe not so well? Just possibly, is there a limit to how much water you can take from creeks, and lakes, and still call them creeks, and lakes? With this dry,dry year, and the threat of fire like the Angora fire always a possibility, it would seem prudent to take our water issues very seriously.

*****************

Creek concerns and aquifer angst

Squaw to adopt a new water plan, but some remain skeptical

By Joanna Hartman

Sierra Sun

May 18, 2007

The Squaw Valley Public Service District hosted a final public meeting Wednesday on the valley's soon-to-be groundwater management plan, and some residents are still concerned the plan doesn't directly address the impact of aquifer pumping on the flow of Squaw Creek.

"We were asking for a creek interaction study quantifying the effects of pumping; ... [the groundwater management plan] wasn't what we had asked for," said Pam Rocca, Squaw Valley resident.

But district staff and board members are confident that the plan is a good one and just the first step in monitoring the valley's long-standing water supply problems.

"[The plan] sets up a cooperative system where everyone can come to the table ... and it's not a plan to answer all questions today, but to start the process," said Derrik Williams, president of consulting firm HydroMetrics.

Why the plan

Following California legislation to establish a groundwater management plan, the public service district prepared its plan with consulting firm HydroMetrics, LLC, along with input from environmental advocates, regulatory agencies and the public. The Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan identifies existing and potential management activities and outlines programs, projects and policies to implement the goals for maintaining the water supply.

The public service district began to formulate the plan one year ago and will likely adopt it at the next board meeting, Williams said.

A groundwater management plan will help ensure safe, reliable and affordable water supply, secure groundwater, protect the district's ability to govern its own water supply and comply with state requirements in order to qualify for future funding opportunities, public service district manager Rick Lierman said in a previous interview.

"[The goal] is to develop a structure where all pumpers can come together and start managing the groundwater cooperatively," said Williams.

The plan is essentially an agreement to set up a system for valley stakeholders to reach consensus in setting goals and objectives to maintain water supply, he said.

An advisory group composed of pumping well owners — including the public service district, Mutual Water Company, PlumpJack, Resort at Squaw Creek, Squaw Valley Ski Corp. and the Poulsen Corporation — will begin meeting to share data on water studies, said Williams.

The bottom line, Williams said, is the plan attempts to unify Squaw Valley's approach to managing water.

Those who oppose

Like Rocca, a civil engineer, long-time Squaw Valley resident and "friend" of Squaw Creek, Carl Gustafson wants to see a creek interaction study addressed immediately.

"That creek's going to dry up this summer ... and I don't understand why you can't make it better," Gustafson told the board Wednesday.

Rocca said while the groundwater plan is very important, without addressing the correlation between the aquifer and the creek, it's just not enough.

"We're overdeveloped and we're overdrafting the aquifer," Rocca said. "Whatever it takes to preserve this valley, I'm determined to do it with my neighbors."

But the board stands strong that the adoption and operation of this plan will lay the groundwork for future water studies and cooperation among various valley stakeholders.

"What we're trying to do here is trying to put together a cooperative effort ... and I think it's going to be a real positive asset for the community," said board Director Dale Cox.

Board Director Eric Poulsen agrees.

"The idea with the groundwater management plan is to minimize the impacts of pumping and to work together, and that's the direction we're headed; ... It's an important tool in the management of our basin," he said.

What's next

Williams will address the remaining public comments and prepare a final groundwater management plan document, which will be in the office or online with the Squaw Valley Public Service District.

Following the plan's adoption the advisory group will begin to meet.

"To get them started talking about what they'd like to see implemented early and how they'd like to fund it," Williams said.

************

Well, I'm probably reinventing the wheel for those of you who followed Squaw's expansion in past years, but I must say this article was an eye-opener. I'm fearful that we'll see more of the same if Royal Gorge LLC gets to go through with all their big plans, and Sugar Bowl acts as an enabler by going along with the new lifts for Ski Camp, and the curious realignment of Crow's Lift. ( Curious because Sugar Bowl's plans into Placer County don't line up with position of mystery lift on Royal Gorge LLC's plans- maybe Sugar Bowl and Royal Gorge LLC could helpfully clear that up for us?) And I do have to say, Mike Livak's responses don't exactly make him sound like a real environmental steward. (enough understatement?) What were the Foster and Symes clans thinking when they started this whole enterprise? CONservation?

Ski resort expansions apparently bring a lot of environmental costs, and I'm afraid Serene Lakes is going to be asked to pay the bill, to the detriment of our quality of life and property values.

*************

Ski resort accused of environmental abuses

Jeff DeLong

RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

Thursday May 3rd, 2001

Nearly a year after federal agents stormed Squaw Valley USA in search of "egregious" acts against the environment, California water quality officials said they may ask the attorney general there to help halt what they called a pattern of violations.

From sediment running off ski slopes and parking lots to the loss of wetlands and the blasting of rock for new lifts, years of activities at the resort are polluting a tributary of the Truckee River and damaging a sensitive mountain environment, state regulators said.

"It's sort of a history we are seeing of non-compliance," said Harold Singer, executive officer of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. "It just seems like a pattern that needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed at a fairly high level."

Squaw Valley executives said Wednesday the report contains "many factual errors" and were surprised that regulators felt the need to involve the attorney general. They said protecting the environment of one of the Sierra's most scenic ski resorts remains a top priority.

"The environment is our asset," said Nancy Wendt, president of Squaw Valley Ski Corp. "A beautiful and pristine mountain experience brings guests and employees to Squaw Valley. It is our duty to make every effort to protect that experience."

The Lahontan's policy board is scheduled to meet May 11 to decide whether the California attorney general should intervene by seeking an injunction or civil penalties against the resort made famous by the 1960 Winter Olympics.

In a report released Tuesday, Lahontan officials cited a history of missed deadlines and alleged failure to obey discharge and cleanup orders. Officials said they have "exhausted their regulatory and enforcement options," and that the matter should be referred to the attorney general.

The dispute with Squaw Valley is the latest confrontation, beginning when armed agents of the Environmental Protection Agency raided the ski resort offices last June. They seized hundreds of items including computers, computer files and other records associated with construction of the high-speed Funitel gondola in 1997-98 and another ski lift in 1999.

That matter, still under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General's office, focused on illegal blasting and storage of debris, resulting in the pollution of Squaw Creek, according to an affidavit filed in support of the EPA search warrant.

Problems with the Funitel gondola and the Headwall-Cornice Express Lift were also addressed in the recent report to Lahontan's policy board. In both cases, the report said, construction activities polluted Squaw Creek and state orders were violated.

Other alleged problems cited in the state's report:

o During construction of the Gold Coast-Mainline Express Lift in 1999, an excessive amount of soil was disturbed, some washing into the creek, and a compliance deadline was missed.

o The resort has not adequately monitored sediment discharge from Squaw's more than 250 ski runs that threaten water quality.

o Squaw's system of some 21 miles of roads damage water quality, violating state standards.

o Parking lot runoff has been inadequately controlled, with some compliance orders disobeyed and deadlines missed.

o Deadlines to replace wetlands removed during expansion of a pond were missed and the wetlands continue to threaten discharge of sediment into protected waters.

"We believe a number of the activities (at Squaw) are contributing to water quality problems and do represent violations," Singer said. "The violations in our opinion seem to continue. Our whole goal here is to get compliance."

Mike Livak, Squaw Valley's director of planning, disagrees with many of the conclusions by Lahontan water officials.

Reports indicating excessive levels of sediment in creek water, Livak said, were skewed because many samples were ordered taken immediately after rainstorms instead of on a random basis only.

"The problem with that method is it unfairly weights sample results," Livak said, comparing the conclusion to determining a baseball player's batting average based mostly during the times he strikes out.

Squaw Valley reports spending some $400,000 on water sampling since 1992. Results indicate that water turbidity in Squaw Creek over the last nine years was nearly four times more pure than municipal drinking water standards dictated by federal law, Livak said.

Livak expressed frustration that Lahontan officials believe it necessary to consider referring the matter to the attorney general when he said many of their apparent concerns were not communicated to Squaw resort officials.

And he cited a Nov. 7 letter from Lahontan watershed chief Scott Ferguson, who wrote that winterization and remediation efforts at the resort "appear sufficient" to avoid water quality problems last winter and expressed his appreciation.

"It just seems like there's some kind of disjuncture there," Livak said. "How is it we're receiving thanks then, and now there's (a proposed referral) to the attorney general?

"It's really bewildering."

*********************

also, see

www.sierrasun.com/article/20000921/REGION/109211436

www.sierrasun.com/article/20010510/REGION/105102679

www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20041215/Region/112150011/-1/REGION

this one's actually curious- when someone else needs water- look who's being the hard guy.

How much to compensate for all the environmental damage that will be caused by Royal Gorge LLC's and Sugar Bowl's new joint lifts at Ski Camp? And will that really make it all better? How much are small, pretty alpine lakes and a couple of headwaters going for these days?

Why is Sugar Bowl going along with those lifts, by the way? Back in the day, I thought most of the owners were concerned about the environment- but things are starting to look different now.

*********************************

August 26, 2005

Tahoe ski resort agrees to pollution settlement

ASSOCIATED PRESS

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Squaw Valley ski resort has agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a lawsuit over pollution during a construction project, officials said.

The agreement between Squaw Valley Ski Corp., the California Attorney General's Office and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board ends a three-year legal battle.

Regulators alleged the ski resort caused environmental damage by dumping dirt into Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Truckee River, during construction of ski lifts.

California authorities said the agreement is "fair and reasonable" and establishes automatic penalties that should prevent any similar problems in the future.

"It settles some issues and also puts into motion some elements to prevent a recurrence of the things that got us into this situation," said Scott Ferguson, a senior water resource engineer for the water board.

"I think it will establish a smoother working relationship. I'm looking forward to moving forward."

Squaw Valley representatives support the pact as a fair arrangement and a "compromise of disputed claims."

The agreement avoids "expensive litigation without admitting liability," said Mike Livak, planning director at the popular ski resort that was host to the 1960 Olympics.

The conflict dates back to June 2000, when armed agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raided offices at the ski resort to investigate alleged environmental violations.

The federal case was ultimately dropped but regulators with the water board and attorney general's office continued to investigate charges the resort illegally dumped dirt into Squaw Creek during the 1998 construction of the Funitel gondola and the 1999 construction of the Headwall-Cornice II Express Lift and the Gold Coast-Mainline Express Lift.

In 2001, the Lahontan water board asked the attorney general's office to investigate what they said was a history of ecological abuses. Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit over what he called "continued disregard of water quality and other environmental standards" in January 2002.

The agreement settles that suit, as well as one subsequently filed by the resort against Harold Singer, the water board's executive director.

---

Information from: Reno Gazette-Journal, http://www.rgj.com

*********************************************************

And wasn't Squaw (with Mr. Livak) sue happy- the suit against Singer and Goldberg made it all the way up to the 9th circuit, with not terrifically positive results for Squaw. No wonder they settled. One really does wonder about Royal Gorge LLC's motivations though, coming on all Ranger Rick Flannel Shirt Friendly, but hiring Squaw's VP who seems more at home in a court-room then out testing turbidity in streams and lakes.