This piece was published in the Sacramento Bee.

Many people know our organization, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, by our mission and slogan: Keep Tahoe Blue.

Lake Tahoe is a special place. It has all the spectacular beauty and popularity of a National Park, but without the environmental protections of places like Yosemite or Yellowstone. Lake Tahoe is rightly revered as a national treasure and is afforded legal environmental protections befitting that status. As Tahoe’s environmental watchdog, we take seriously our role to make sure the lake and its spectacular environs are not degraded, but are preserved for future generations.

That is why we, along with Sierra Watch, recently took legal action to challenge Placer County’s approval of ski conglomerate Alterra Mountain Company’s massive development plan for Palisades Tahoe. Alterra’s plan would have significant impacts on the Lake Tahoe Basin, worsening traffic congestion, increasing air pollution, eroding roadways and degrading water quality.

We see litigation as a highly imperfect, inefficient and expensive tool of last resort. But all our other options have been exhausted. And someone must act in the lake’s best interest.

We are not opposed to a modernization and expansion of Palisades Tahoe in Olympic Valley — specifically, something that addresses the serious need to build more workforce housing. For a decade, we have engaged in discussions with Alterra and Placer County officials to find a collaborative solution that would improve Olympic Valley without negatively impacting Tahoe.

We proposed alternatives for a smaller project or a phased construction plan with checkpoints along the way so adjustments could be made that ensure minimal impacts to Tahoe. But Alterra would not entertain any alternative to their colossal proposal, which includes nearly 300,000 square feet of commercial space, almost 1,500 bedrooms in up to 850 units and more than 2,000 additional parking spaces.

All that development would result in one certainty: more car travel in a region that is already overburdened. And it doesn’t take a scientist to understand that more cars equals more environmental problems for Tahoe.

According to the Village at Palisades Tahoe’s own environmental studies, the project would generate 3,300 new daily car trips on the already busiest days. Almost 1,400 of those new car trips are expected to flow into the Tahoe Basin.

Added car trips would damage roads and increase runoff and sediment loading to the lake from those roadways — already the leading cause of water clarity degradation in the famous water body. In addition, more tailpipe emissions are bad for both air and water quality.

Common sense says that Tahoe’s already congested roads, which currently back up for hours, can’t handle thousands more car trips per day. Imagine the impacts this would have on trips to the grocery store, after school practices or doctor visits.

It paints a grim picture.

We are not alone in our opposition. The League joins conservation group Sierra Watch, which launched the grassroots effort to oppose Alterra’s project and secure a better future for Olympic Valley more than 10 years ago, in the lawsuit.

And it’s not just environmental groups that have expressed concerns about the proposal: The Placer County Board of Supervisors received more than 3,000 public comments opposing the project. Business leaders, employees of Palisades Tahoe, elected officials, homeowners’ associations, the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council, North Tahoe Regional Advisory Council and other local organizations have also publicly opposed the development project.

We all care about the issues inherent to the region: overcrowding, congestion, lengthy commutes, soaring housing prices and the increasingly untenable cost of living conditions. Alterra’s project does nothing to mitigate those concerns.

Alterra has committed some minimal local funding to address traffic problems, but many of those are one-time funding allocations that would make little difference when parsed out over the 25-year build-out of the project. They won’t do nearly enough to offset the environmental issues that would arise with increased traffic, and there are no accountability measures in place to ensure those funds are actually effective in protecting Lake Tahoe.

Those offerings are mere window dressing for a larger problem and continue a depressing trend of superficial efforts put forth by Alterra. In 2021, a California Court of Appeals ruled that Alterra’s past environmental studies were insufficient and ordered Placer County to vacate the project’s approvals. The court made clear that the plan failed to adequately address potential harm to air and water quality, as well as increased noise levels, traffic and transit in Tahoe.

Nothing meaningful has changed in Alterra’s proposed plan since that ruling. We cannot stand by and allow approval of a plan that defies state law and does not adequately address impacts to Lake Tahoe.

We are committed to an open dialogue with Alterra and Placer officials to find a project that would build affordable housing and benefit the Tahoe community without jeopardizing the precious natural resources that are the reason people want to live, work and visit Tahoe.

Steve Spurlock is Board Chair of the League to Save Lake Tahoe and Dr. Darcie Goodman Collins is the organization’s Chief Executive Officer. Founded in 1957, the League to Save Lake Tahoe is the donor-funded, science-based organization of environmental experts and Tahoe-lovers behind Keep Tahoe Blue. Learn more at keeptahoeblue.org.