Clients: Council of State Governments, National League of 
              Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures,
              National Association of Counties, National
              Governors Association, International City-County
              Management Association, International Municipal
              Lawyers Association, and U.S. Conference of
              Mayors As Amici Curiae In Support of
              Respondents

Click on one of the links below to read more about Lake Tahoe and the cases.

A. Amicus Brief Prepared by CRC for the State and 
     Local Legal Center Supporting Respondents

     Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting
     Respondents

     Brief of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

     Brief of the American Planning Association and National
     Trust for Historic Preservation

     Unofficial Transcript of the Oral Argument

      CRC Article in Insight Magazine

B. Background information on Lake Tahoe

C. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe
     Regional Planning Agency (9th Cir. / D. Nev.)

D. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Barbieri (E.D. Cal.)

E. Press Accounts of the Oral Argument

Background Information

Lake Tahoe, one of the world's most pristine lakes, is a national treasure and the crown jewel of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Mark Twain once described Lake Tahoe as the "fairest picture the whole earth affords," and few lakes rival its exceptional clarity. Unfortunately, the Lake's beauty and allure has become the source of its threatened demise. Development near the Lake has worsened erosion and surface runoff, which in turn have dramatically increased algae that diminish the Lake's clarity. Particularly destructive is new construction in steep, fragile lands that have a high risk of run-off or erosion. Also of great concern is development in wetlands and floodplains, which filter out contaminants that would otherwise pollute the Lake.

After exhaustive scientific study, in the 1980s the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency implemented several balanced, tailored, and creative programs to reduce harmful development and protect the Lake. The Agency uses many innovative approaches -- including transferable development rights -- to balance Lake protections with the concerns of property owners. Nevertheless, certain landowners have challenged the Agency's Lake protections under the Takings Clause. If successful, these suits could undermine continuing efforts to protect the Lake.

A. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe
     Regional Planning Agency (9th Cir. / D. Nev.)

This case is a class action filed on behalf of 450 landowners in the Lake Tahoe area. After more than 14 years of litigation, in January 1999 the district court ruled that two temporary development moratoria imposed by the Agency in the early 1980s worked a taking. Both moratoria were reasonable, narrow, and short. One lasted only eight months, and the other about two years. Both allowed the Agency to resolve exceedingly complex scientific and planning issues so that reasonable development could proceed. The trial court's ruling threatened not only protections for Lake Tahoe, but any temporary delay in development designed to allow for reasonable planning. The Ninth Circuit agreed to hear an immediate appeal, and on June 15, 2000, it reversed the district court in a resounding victory for state and local governments and land use planners.  The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.  To read the question presented to the Court, click here.

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (9^th Circuit)
Client: International Municipal Lawyers Assoc.
Issues: Use vs. value under the Lucas per se rule.

CRC’s Amicus Brief 

Subsequent opinion at Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2000).

B. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Barbieri (E.D.
     Cal.)

The Agency brought this enforcement action against property owners for unauthorized development. The owners asserted a takings counterclaim challenging the land use controls that apply to their property. On July 28, 2000, the federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency.  In June 2001, the parties settled the litigation.

If you have questions or comments about this website or
Community Rights Counsel email us!

© 2005 Community Rights Counsel. All rights reserved.