Friends of Squaw Valley

[old goat]

Washoe refused to pay $350k a year in subsidies, some at Placer weren't happy, Nstar shareholders wondered about helping SV build massive parking for condo-owners only, Hyatt at Incline refused to pay subsidies, and Homewood chipped in only $2500. It got out the bus was costing up to $290.14 to run for lousy 3500 people out of 90,000 planes a year. Amador Buses weren't happy with being cut free. Hertz et al weren't enthused. People on payrolls resigned from committees just before proverbial stuff hit the fan. The bus crashed off a fiscal cliff. Then sites for parking and employee housing and buses came up as a life line as other legal issues helped some people decide that open air parking would work commercially as well as legally/planning-wise. I think there was talk about the Political Fairness Commission looking at CA-NV cross border dealings using servers on US Soil or something as the PFC charged unlicensed lobbyists. Anyway the carparking for Bay Area Escalades only wasn't going to be, and lo and behold even Ed Heneveld was pleasantly surprised by the scaled back plans. And some people won all sorts of reasonable concessions over the latter half of 2013 as the pro-town folk weren't invited to meetings. And KSL decided that its cheaper and better to offer their guests - ie those who fly in - a resort car for occassional travel to see the Total Tahoe Experience that foreigners and interstaters want to see without paying 'foreigner car insurance' that costs as much as the rental. That's my theory why the bus crashed off the fiscal ravine and why KSL listened, but what would I know.

Sounds like you're talking about the airport shuttle? Which was cut back, not eliminated. I was talking about the shuttle from Squaw to the North Shore of the lake which I believe was the one cancelled, although I get this stuff mixed up. Good info though.

[epicski]

Sounds like you're talking about the airport shuttle? Which was cut back, not eliminated. I was talking about the shuttle from Squaw to the North Shore of the lake which I believe was the one cancelled, although I get this stuff mixed up. Good info though.

The above bus pilot program was cut to smithereens. This season is was for 40 days they cut it to ran 2 runs in the morning, none over the day, and 2 runs in the afternoon, then night rider.

[epicski]

Good info though.

I hope so coz KSL were pretty reasonable dealing with informed people. In more recent times they've promptly effected a few changes and I hope they build 'soul' - its good for business and real estate to leverage off your core loyal people, like the 1700 kids paying about $3500 a season for teams.

[LightRanger]

And I haven't heard Sierra Watch say 'yeah we tried to get a no 8 mile pipe clause in our settlement in court'.

Good points regarding people asleep at the switch. Seems kind of ridiculous to me that they would be, but I bet they aren't asleep now, in any event, no? The Moonshine Ink article from December has a quote from TDPUD, so it looks like they're paying attention.

On the Sierra Watch Martis settlement, I think I've seen you mention that before. Even if pumping out of the aquifer was a significant issue in that litigation--which to my knowledge it wasn't--the court wouldn't just be able to order no pumping and exporting out of the aquifer. And the parties wouldn't be able to agree to that either. A little long and complicated to explain, but the court didn't have jurisdiction over all groundwater rights holders in Martis. Basically, all KSL has to do from a water rights standpoint is find somebody who owns land that overlies the aquifer (any person, it doesn't have to be a water agency like TDPUD) and cut a deal with that landowner to sink wells and pump out. Or buy land and drill the well(s) themselves. It's a lot more complex when you add building the pipeline, environmental review, and permitting the pipeline, but from a straightline water rights standpoint, that's all they'd have to do.

Viz a viz the cost of the pipe and who pays, a) I bet there's grants: there were talks when I was at the Reno Primary discussion group ages ago 2/. there'll probably be infrastructure levies built into power rates, 3/. and would IOV Town have any say about things run up a road classed as a Scenic Rd and into streets under the side roads? I know KSL were great to deal with on some road and pipe things that suited our board management, but others seem blissfully unaware of what's going on. Maybe they hope enviro groups can shave - as happened in Homewood - a 13 residences out of a $400m development. That's not a win imo. I'd rather sit down with KSL and work out a few things like they've done eg shaving levels and adding set backs so our view isn't impeded as much as it would've been.

I saw in the SVPSD Board minutes that they have grant money from the Department of Water Resources to study finding an alternative water source, which in this case they're using on the pipeline study. But that's only $225,000. Geary said in the Moonshine Ink article that a potential pipeline would cost $30 million. And that doesn't include well(s), cost of land (if they chose to buy it) or agreement with a landowner or other water agency if they went that route, and the costs of getting all the permits/entitlements/enviro docs in order.

The revenue would almost exclusively come from a bond with water rates from ratepayers as the collateral, but there's the rub: ratepayers actually have a certain veto power over rate increases under the California Constitution. Check it out: http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_pr....html#chapter5 So, assuming it's SVPSD who ends up being the water purveyor, the the SVPSD ratepayers can potentially stop them from doing something they don't like under Proposition 218. I'm not sure what would happen if KSL created their own mutual water company. Not familiar enough with how that works, but I think they'd insulate themselves from a rate challenge if they went that route. They'd still have to find somebody to give them the bond money for the pipe though. They sure as hell wouldn't be paying cash up front for it.

Here's a case where landowners successfully challenged a utility fee: http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2348 http://www.cp-dr.com/node/2586

Why not top up the aquifer like in arid countries and cities like Sydney, or like Bear Mtn in Pen is doing? Put greywater through a purifer and pump in INTO the aquifer when its low.

We do that here too. It's really widespread in LA, Orange County, San Diego, and other areas of Southern California. In fact, most of the water used in Orange County is pumped out of the ground there. They actually treat sewage, let the ground purify it, and then pump it back out as drinking water--on a scale larger than anybody else in the world.

KSL is talking about doing greywater recycling with this project too. They talk about it in the Revised NOP.

This is all hypothetical that this point though.

[LightRanger]

The Moonshine article really covers much of what we're talking about on the water issue. Reposting...

The Squaw Valley Public Service District has a problem that’s preoccupied it for the past 20 years — all of its water comes from a single source, the aquifer under the Squaw Valley meadow and ski resort east parking lot. This means that in the case of an emergency such as contamination of the aquifer, there is no backup water supply to turn to. In September, the district board approved studying a preferred alternative water supply — the Martis Valley aquifer, more than eight miles away. While the district has decided to take a step back and more fully explore water sources closer to Squaw Valley, the idea of exporting water from a neighboring community is raising some eyebrows.

Ample Supply in Martis Valley The SVPSD is charged with providing a reliable water supply to its customers. As such, it’s number one goal for the past two decades has been to identify a redundant water supply that could be used if the Squaw Valley aquifer was threatened, or during peak times such as Christmas week and Fourth of July weekend.

“The water supply source is vulnerable in that we only have one source — if there was a contamination event, we would have no back-up for customers,” said SVPSD General Manager Mike Geary.

In 2009, the SVPSD completed the Alternative/Supplemental Water Supply and Enhanced Utilities Feasibility Study, which found that the district will need an additional 1,210 acre-feet of water to meet build-out maximum day demand. According to Geary, the district’s existing four wells, which currently service 1,569 residential units and 20 large commercial entities, can only produce enough supplemental water to supply 100 new single-family homes.

“That’s as much supply as we have right now,” Geary said.

But drilling more wells in the aquifer is not an option. The 2009 study stated: “Drilling new production wells within the Olympic Valley has become increasingly more difficult due to the limited capacity of the Squaw Valley aquifer to yield sufficient quantity and quality of potable water.”

The Squaw Valley aquifer, which is less than one square mile and around 150 feet deep, has an estimated sustainable yield of 1,524 acre feet of water. By contrast, the Martis Valley aquifer is 15 square miles and 800 feet deep, and the recently completed Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan, prepared by the three agencies that draw from the Martis Valley aquifer — the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Northstar Community Services District, and Placer County Water Agency — found that the aquifer has a sustainable yield of between 32,745 and 35,168 acre-feet of water per year, 22 times more water than the Squaw Valley aquifer. Currently, only around 9,341 acre-feet of water per year in Martis Valley, or 27 percent, is being used. Even at full build-out, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District conservatively estimates demand to be approximately 21,000 acre-feet per year.

“Martis Valley has an ample water supply,” Geary said. “If we do need to go to Martis Valley for water, it wouldn’t be the case that we were taking water that Truckee would otherwise need and negatively impacting Truckee.”

Although the 2009 study looked at side drainages along the Truckee River in the Highway 89 corridor such as Silver Creek, Pole Creek, and Cabin Creek as possible water supply sources, all of these were found to be insufficient due to water quality and quantity issues, and environmental constraints.

That left Martis Valley as the only realistic option for a redundant water supply. The SVPSD board in September approved pursuing that course of action, funded by a $225,000 grant from the California Department of Water Resources. But after the public expressed concern over the idea, Geary proposed doubling back and pursuing two phases before proceeding with Martis Valley as the preferred alternative — summarizing all redundant water sources the district looked at in Squaw over the past 20 years and identifying other sources it may have missed; and then taking a closer look at those potential water supply sources. The board approved this revised scope of work in October.

“If there are feasible sources close by, we will stop in our tracks, rewrite Phase III [Martis Valley as preferred alternative],” Geary said. “But Martis Valley is not the best alternative because we came up with it one night; it builds off of work done over the last five years.”

An Expensive Option The SVPSD has three options when it comes to getting water from the Martis Valley aquifer — it can either approach some of the water purveyors in the area for a wholesale agreement, pay a Martis Valley property owner to put in a well on their land, or purchase a small piece of property in Martis Valley and drill its own well.

Since groundwater in California is unadjudicated, there is no regulatory body that watches over how much any agency or individual pumps out of a well. It is not until there is evidence of overdrafting (when demand exceeds supply) that a judge becomes involved. As TDPUD spokesman Steven Poncelet put it: “Groundwater is a little bit of the Wild West. If you own property and want to put in a well, it’s ‘good luck.’”

The SVPSD’s Geary said the district would not need much water from the Martis Valley aquifer since it is mainly to be used as a secondary source. Even if the SVPSD shut down all of its wells in Squaw, it would only need 1,500 acre-feet of water from Martis Valley to serve its customers, including the proposed expanded Village at Squaw Valley.

The biggest hurdle in exporting water from Martis to Squaw is the expense. Geary estimates that building a pipeline along Highway 89 would cost around $30 million. The only way to make this affordable would be to partner with other agencies that want to underground utilities along the highway such as Southwest Gas, AT&T, or Suddenlink, or with Placer County as it completes the bike trail from Squaw Valley to Truckee.

An Uncomfortable Idea Although the SVPSD won’t start studying the Martis Valley aquifer as a redundant water supply in earnest until December 2014, after Phase I and II are completed, the thought of it has made some people uncomfortable.

“I personally don’t like the idea of taking water from one watershed and putting it in another,” said Ed Heneveld, a longtime Squaw resident who heads up Friends of Squaw Creek. “I understand the mandate to find a redundant water supply, but when I hear $30 million and I hear that we are taking water from neighbors, I feel it needs to be analyzed.”

Geary argues that Martis Valley and Squaw Valley are in the same watershed because any water that falls in those areas ends up in the same place — Pyramid Lake. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place.”

Heneveld would like the SVPSD to further explore water sources in Squaw and close by, such as across the Truckee River, before jumping to Martis Valley as the solution.

“Politically, ideologically, and philosophically, it rubs me wrong,” he said, “but technically I understand it.”

Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch, is also wary of the idea of piping water from Martis Valley to Squaw. He worries this could not only threaten Martis Valley, but that the idea is linked to KSL’s plans to expand the Squaw village.

“While the origin of this idea predates KSL, the two are connected now,” Mooers said. “There are limited water supplies in Squaw, and the scale of development would need substantial water supplies. Martis Valley water could potentially provide this needed water supply.”

KSL has said thus far it can provide all the water for the development from the portion of the aquifer under its property. Whether this is true or not will be borne out by the SVPSD’s Water Assessment Study, which is on hold until KSL comes back with its revised development plan; the illustrated concept is expected mid-December, while the official revised plan should be out mid-January.

If the SVPSD decides to actively pursue Martis Valley’s water, agencies like the Truckee Donner Public Utility District will be watching.

“It would be something to pay attention to,” said Poncelet, noting that the TDPUD is one of the stewards of the Martis Valley aquifer. “The district is determined that its customers not be harmed.”

[epicski]

I'm not sure what would happen if KSL created their own mutual water company. Not familiar enough with how that works, but I think they'd insulate themselves from a rate challenge if they went that route. They'd still have to find somebody to give them the bond money for the pipe though. They sure as hell wouldn't be paying cash up front for it.

KSL is talking about doing greywater recycling with this project too. They talk about it in the Revised NOP.

This is all hypothetical that this point though.

I recall they were going to foot the cost after seeking grants - they need to go through places and as far as I'm concerned they can foot the cost.

Yeah i know about some of the greywater: I met them.

[epicski]

We do that here too. It's really widespread in LA, Orange County, San Diego, and other areas of Southern California. In fact, most of the water used in Orange County is pumped out of the ground there. They actually treat sewage, let the ground purify it, and then pump it back out as drinking water--on a scale larger than anybody else in the world. KSL is talking about doing greywater recycling with this project too. They talk about it in the Revised NOP.

I know some people in the American Indian winter olympic movement and I recall their leadership likened using toilet-to-snowmakers like peeing on the walls of the Vatican. The water ends up in Pyramid lake so there's federal issues of some sort. Would these planning issues end up in a 2nd District Court in Washington or Brown's new pro-economy enviro court.

The County will also look into faultlines and building over the aquifer. As the current study on a fault, that runs from Meyers to $ Point, indicates the west shore might rise 6' or more 'anyday', what safeguards are built into the design of 7-10 storey buildings over a huge hole and what safeguards are built into 8 mile pipes of gas with water and power and poo. I've seen areas evacuated when gases and power and water mix, it ain't pretty.

[FriendsofSV]

Here is the latest Passholder Survey

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/155158...rvey-Questions

[epicski]

http://1.usa.gov/1jyiVez

I'm intrigued by a question that asks, in effect, are you not getting a pass because we don't have enough snowmaking? I think its time to get answers from these water gurus.

[old goat]

Good points regarding people asleep at the switch. Seems kind of ridiculous to me that they would be, but I bet they aren't asleep now, in any event, no? The Moonshine Ink article from December has a quote from TDPUD, so it looks like they're paying attention.


The revenue would almost exclusively come from a bond with water rates from ratepayers as the collateral, but there's the rub: ratepayers actually have a certain veto power over rate increases under the California Constitution. Check it out: http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_pr....html#chapter5 So, assuming it's SVPSD who ends up being the water purveyor, the the SVPSD ratepayers can potentially stop them from doing something they don't like under Proposition 218. I'm not sure what would happen if KSL created their own mutual water company. Not familiar enough with how that works, but I think they'd insulate themselves from a rate challenge if they went that route. They'd still have to find somebody to give them the bond money for the pipe though. They sure as hell wouldn't be paying cash up front for it.

TDPUD is on the ball but I have less faith in the Truckee Town Council's ability and willingness to raise any challenge to the development on the basis of harm to Truckee businesses or traffic impacts. But is the even a valid basis on which Placer County could deny a permit or require mitigation? Not that Placer County would have any sympathy for Truckee.

Re: raising water rates--the article you cite mentions that the applicability of Prop 218 to metered water rates is yet to be determined.

[LightRanger]

Business impact isn't something they have to mitigate. Traffic is.

The info on that site is dated. 218 applies to water rates per the Bighorn case in 2006.

[epicski]

Business impact isn't something they have to mitigate. Traffic is.

The anti-KSL people weren't in Sochi (with amazing engineering and Squaw locals, or at the recent resort management talks or at the conference with the State Water Board or with politicians (real ones and small fry local ones) or in talks with those KSL has made concessions with or with local voters. I'm stunned that locals who want to topple the development prefer to go skiing and meet once a week.

[epicski]

I saw that Vail Resorts has added Niseko while Squaw asks if an international add-on would appeal.

[old goat]

Riding up Granite today with a guy who was laid off by KSL from his job doing sustainability and environmental work. Hard to blame that on lack of snow. Just in case you were wondering whether KSL's environmental talk was more than talk.

[nickwm21]

Holy OSHA violation.

[LightRanger]

I saw that Vail Resorts has added Niseko while Squaw asks if an international add-on would appeal.

Yeah. That's pretty sweet. Epic Pass is a no-brainer (even in addition to another pass) if you know you'll be taking a Japan trip.

Riding up Granite today with a guy who was laid off by KSL from his job doing sustainability and environmental work. Hard to blame that on lack of snow. Just in case you were wondering whether KSL's environmental talk was more than talk.

Derp.

[old goat]

Derp.

Learned a new urban dictionary word today.

[epicski]

Yeah. That's pretty sweet. Epic Pass is a no-brainer (even in addition to another pass) if you know you'll be taking a Japan trip.

Danielsan, KSL's survey asks about international passes. And 25% of Tahoe's visitors are foreigners who fly TO the USA. KSL obviously didn't want internationals in the past (they were offered 2 places that VR grabbed instead) like chinese and japanese and oceania places who ski, spend more, spend quicker, fill midweek lodgings, like flatstar groomers and love casinos. And where in the world are you guaranteed to get deep pow in peak periods like Xmas: Hint: Japow. I think KSL should've grabbed that or similar invites as a add on. (Even Aspen offers incentives to foreigners).

[epicski]

Riding up Granite today with a guy who was laid off by KSL from his job doing sustainability and environmental work. Hard to blame that on lack of snow. Just in case you were wondering whether KSL's environmental talk was more than talk.

Things should be in hiatus, hence the 'holiday, though they are looking into some things at pretty senior levels.

In talking to a reasonably well informed non-KSL person today about design stuff, KSL has shaved a place in a way to 'lose' a floor and go down to 2 storeys in another section. And we're getting some other nice changes. We might even piggy back on commercial deals. Why pay full tarriff?

[LightRanger]

Learned a new urban dictionary word today.

To be clear, I was referring to KSL's layoff of the dude on the chair as being derpy.

[old goat]

To be clear, I was referring to KSL's layoff of the dude on the chair as being derpy.

appreciate that. And to clarify--the guy was working on sustainability, by which i believe he meant stuff like energy efficiency--insulation,etc--in the existing buildings, not the planned development.

[epicski]

appreciate that. And to clarify--the guy was working on sustainability, by which i believe he meant stuff like energy efficiency--insulation,etc--in the existing buildings, not the planned development.

that makes more sense.

A survey is coming out soon on unofficialalpine I heard. I'm sure it'll be very detailed and surpass KSLs for useful information.

[epicski]

Here is the latest Passholder Survey

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/155158...rvey-Questions

I'm sure there's a certain logic behind their official survey however here is a logical Unofficial Passholder Survey for comparison.

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/156091...on-Pass-Survey.

[FriendsofSV]

Sierra Watch's Tom Mooers explains the NOP process.

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/nor...-environmental

We encourage all Squaw Valley stakeholders to give their comments before March 24.

[old goat]

Sierra Watch's Tom Mooers explains the NOP process.

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/nor...-environmental

We encourage all Squaw Valley stakeholders to give their comments before March 24.

My comments to Placer County--obviously only considers one aspect of the project, but I think keeping it to one concept increases the chance that someone will pay attention:

KSL needs to identify specifically how guests will reach the resort. It needs to identify the size, location, and impacts of all off site parking and the means of transport between those lots and the resort. Specific goals for the use of transportation other than single family cars should be set and the means for reaching those goals identified. The transportation plan for any shuttles must include the types of vehicles and fuel, the frequency of trips, and the hours and dates during which trips will occur. Transportation options for guests staying at the resort to reach surrounding towns like Truckee and North Lake Tahoe should be identified. The sources of transportation funding--be it the resort, riders, or both--should be identified in order to properly assess feasibility, and if public transport is to be utilized the specific funding for this should be identified, and commitments from identified public agencies must be documented. The developers' proposal relies heavily on a justification of reduced traffic impacts and environmental benefits, specifically on the promise that guests and residents of the village will not use private transportation during their stays and that public transportation to the resort will reduce day skier vehicle miles. Given the emphasis the developers place on being eco-friendly, vague assurances are not enough--a very specific plan must be presented--as comprehensive as the site plans and and architectural renderings.

A number of resorts I have visited--including Whistler-Blackcomb, Jackson Hole, and Chamonix--rely heavily on public transportation which is much more frequent and runs for longer hours than public transportation in the Truckee-Tahoe area and is much more heavily used. Approval of KSL's EIR should be dependent on the developer demonstrating how Truckee-Tahoe public transport is to be brought up to this international standard. Failing that, any claim of environmental benefit should be rejected as mitigation of the projects environmental impact.