Fixing the Pipes, Angering the Neighbors
The Tahoe City Public Utility District has never built a water system. Instead, as its inception in 1938 intended, it bought up small, privately owned water companies that dotted the North and West shores of Lake Tahoe to consolidate them into one locally controlled public water system.
Over the course of nine decades, the TCPUD has brought two dozen water systems into its fold. Designed primarily for summer use, these small water systems were not built to meet modern drinking water standards or operate year-round. By the 21st century, many of these systems — with aging infrastructure and delayed capital improvements — were at risk of failing.
The Mid-Sierra Water Utility, located in Tahoma, is one of those failing. Purchased by the PUD in 2018, it comprises two water systems – Tahoe Cedars and Madden Creek. Tahoe Cedars, built in the 1940s, is so big and in such dire straits that its renovation represents the largest, most expensive, and most complex water system reconstruction project in the district’s history. And it is not without controversy.
The point of contention centers around the proposed staging area for Phase 1 of the project. Neighbors are concerned about environmental impacts to the surrounding forest and wildlife habitat, and question why this location was selected when, in their view, other sites are better suited for a staging area. The PUD, however, contends this site is the most efficient because it’s near the construction and will reduce disturbances to the greater neighborhood.
Tahoe Cedars
Between 1939 and 1979, the TCPUD consolidated 19 small water systems. In the last eight years alone, it spent $7.8 million to purchase five more, all on the West Shore.
Tahoe Cedars is the oldest and — due to aging pipelines, limited storage, outdated or nonexistent meters, and patched-together infrastructure — is actively failing. The system has 1,200 connections, representing 20% of the PUD’s water customers. The project entails replacing 15 miles of undersized and failing water pipes, installing 144 fire hydrants (the neighborhood currently only has around 80, most of which do not meet modern fire protection flow standards), and installing 1,200 residential water meters, which means relocating the connections from residents’ backyards to the public right-of-way. (The PUD is helping to offset these service relocation costs to homeowners by offering a $5,000 reimbursement, or $12,000 for those who qualify for the district’s low-income program.)
The water pipes are in such bad condition that many have holes in them, which were patched by the previous owners with clamps. As a result, the district put a moratorium on fire hydrant testing.
“We can’t do it anymore because anytime we open a fire hydrant, it creates more leaks,” said TCPUD General Manager Sean Barclay.
The estimated cost to fix the Tahoe Cedars water system is currently $85 million, but the district expects that number to rise due to inflation. Funding for the project comes from water rate revenue from all of the district’s 6,200 customers and property taxes. However, starting in January 2024, Tahoe Cedars and Madden Creek customers began paying an additional infrastructure improvement charge of $43.58 per month for 30 years, marking the first time the PUD has implemented an additional charge to a select group of customers.
“This is directly related to the magnitude of the cost of the project,” Barclay said. “We spend an inordinate amount of time in that water system [more] than in any other system fixing leaks.”
Although the district has a One Water System policy, which includes a single rate structure across its customer service area, the PUD made an exception to its rule to offset the extreme expense of the Tahoma project.
“It’s an attempt to balance equity between customers in this system and customers in the rest of the system,” Barclay said. “The magnitude of the costs to rebuild this system is much greater than we have ever had to do with previous acquisitions.”
Environmental Concerns
The Tahoe Cedars water tank was selected by the district as the staging area for the water system reconstruction. This is a roughly 3-acre parcel owned by the TCPUD and surrounded by 42 acres of California Tahoe Conservancy land. Although the district considered 30 sites scattered throughout and surrounding the Tahoma neighborhood for the staging area, it landed on the Tahoe Cedars water tank because of its location adjacent to the project.
“The reason the parcel is being considered as one of many potential staging locations is just its proximity to the construction site and the fact that we own the parcel,” Barclay said. “The closer it is to the site of construction is ideal, right? There’s not trucks driving through the neighborhood. You can minimize the time that’s needed to access the materials that are stored there.”
However, when neighbors became aware of this, they grew concerned. The Tahoe Cedars water tank leads to heavily used trails that are accessed by hikers, dog walkers, mountain bikers, and cross-country skiers. The trails are the community’s main access to Sugar Pine Point State Park and national forest.
“Why would you even think of putting a corporation yard like that in a forest when you got what the PUD stated was 30 other alternatives?” asked neighbor Rick Landgraf. “This is a community impact. Would you take Commons Beach and let trucks drive all over it? That’s how we should be thinking about it.”
Landgraf, a former hydrologist, is alarmed by the heavy equipment that will be stationed at the site, speculating that there will be 200 pieces of heavy equipment and a 12,000-gallon fuel tank.
“My experience when I was doing this kind of work, this stuff is really damaging. It compacts soils and vibrates; it’s loud,” he said. “It will lead to very serious and permanent destruction … That can lead to runoff problems. In a corporation yard, that’s an area where you take equipment. Sometimes it breaks, it needs to be repaired, you have to drain fluids. I am flabbergasted to even think why somebody would want to put that in the middle of a forest.”
Landgraf also worries about a loose chain sparking or equipment overheating and causing a fire.
Barclay, however, said that characterization of the staging area as an industrial yard is not accurate, and that the PUD is not even going to utilize the entire 3-acre parcel; the district says that it will use less than an acre. He also estimated that there would not be more than 10 to 15 pieces of equipment at the site at one time.
“It’s not going to be an industrial yard, nor will it be the only staging area … There will be no fuel storage tanks or chemical storage tank at that site,” he said. “We would maintain recreation access throughout the duration of that use … This is nowhere near the size, scale, or impact that is being described right now.”
The Nesting Site
Other concerns include an American goshawk nest on the conservancy land (the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency said it is unknown if it is currently an active nest). Although goshawks are not endangered, they are designated as a sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service.
“They are very sensitive to disturbance and relatively intolerant of activity by humans, and they are very protective of their nests,” said Will Richardson, Tahoe Institute of Natural Science executive director. “That is one of the reasons the Forest Service and other land management agencies put a lot of effort into trying to protect the birds.”
The TRPA has a threshold of 12 active goshawk nests in the Basin. In 2010, the last time a full survey was conducted, 10 sites were recorded (there are 30 known nests, but not all are active). The agency and USFS require a quarter-mile buffer zone around nesting areas, which the latter calls Protected Activity Centers (PACs), where no disturbance is allowed. According to the TRPA, the Tahoe Cedars water-tank site sits outside the requisite buffer.
Neighbor Mike Levin became so concerned about the staging area that he started a Facebook page and website, Save Tahoma Wilderness, in March. It states, “We support community progress and utility upgrades, but we believe they must be made without destroying our forest. We are advocating for using developed, paved alternative staging sites that preserve the integrity of Tahoma’s trails and the safety of our neighbors.”
The website provided an advocacy toolkit including talking points, an email template, and facts to share. According to TRPA spokesperson Jeff Cowen, the agency received around 12 of these email form letters.
Staging Area Deferred
Levin and Landgraf also accused TCPUD of sidestepping the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process. However, Barclay said that its CEQA consultants determined that Tahoe Cedars was categorically exempt, but that “as individual phases move through and get to the final design phase, these changes are consistently evaluated by us and reviewed to confirm whether there is any additional environmental review [warranted] … we always make sure our projects comply with CEQA.”
Barclay added, “I can just tell you that we are very transparent. We pride ourselves on that. There is nothing to hide here. We’re a public agency. We are not a for-profit agency.”
The TCPUD was required to obtain a TRPA permit for the Tahoe Cedars project, which was granted in April. By that time, however, the district had removed the portion of the project that would have required the use of the staging area in the forest — replacing the waterline on Placer Street and Antelope Way above Elm Street — from its application for Phase 1. (The project is so big there are four phases.) That decision was made partly because in mid-2025, the PUD learned of the goshawk nest.
“We are concerned. We are aware of it now and we will make sure that we are doing all the work that we need to do to meet any sort of regulations to protect the goshawk,” Barclay asserted. “So that is also part of the reason that we removed that piece of pipe from this project — to make sure we’re doing all of the work that we need to do to comply with any regulations or requirements to protect the environment or wildlife.”
While the staging area at the Tahoe Cedars water tank is off the table for now, the PUD will eventually need to revisit the idea when it’s ready to bring back the portion of Phase 1 involving the waterline.
The TRPA stated that if the PUD decides to reconsider the water tank area, it will monitor the site for bird activity.
“A lot of times when it comes to potential impacts to wildlife, then projects are put on hold while monitoring happens because monitoring for, especially bird habitat, can take an entire season,” Cowen said. “Sometimes noise monitoring happens during projects as well, so that we know if the project needs to change BMPs, change time of day, change time of year, that it operates.”
Despite the TRPA’s and TCPUD’s assurances that the project will follow all environmental regulations, neighbors are not convinced.
“Eight years into this project, and weeks from groundbreaking, fundamental questions on fire risk, public safety, environmental impact, site design, and project financing remain unanswered in the public record,” Landgraf wrote in an email to Moonshine Ink.
With the staging area put on the back burner for the near future, neighbors are breathing a sigh of relief, but only temporarily.
“We will continue to monitor and organize the community and continue to see that the PUD does the responsible thing here, and not what’s convenient for the contractor,” Levin said.
