A new approach by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to using American River water may also benefit other water agencies in the Bay Area. The strategy of interlocking pipelines and shared storage has the potential to end the battle between EBMUD and Sacramento-area water users, improve the security of EBMUD's water supply, and improve water quality for other Bay Area water suppliers. However, its success is dependent on developing agreements between EBMUD and other entities, many of which have opposed EBMUD in the past on this issue.
Currently, EBMUD draws its water from the Mokelumne River watershed, which meets EBMUD's needs except during periods of drought. It was chosen for its high water quality and proximity to the Bay Area.
However, the Mokelumne is a comparatively small river and its dams provide limited storage capacity. As population grew rapidly in EBMUD's service area, the district contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation for supplemental water drawn from the American River, initially from the Nimbus Reservoir below Folsom Dam. Plans for diverting the water at Nimbus drew an immediate legal challenge, based on the impact on Sacramento water users and the environment. A 1990 court decision (the Hodge decision) allowed EBMUD to draw its water at Nimbus, although the agency must maintain minimum flows through Sacramento at a level higher than required by its contract.
Adapted from EBMUD map; click to enlarge
In the early 1990s, the EBMUD board agreed to delay drawing on the American River, with the attendant capital expenditure, and instead turned to a plan for conjunctive use—joint groundwater storage—of Mokelumne River water with users in San Joaquin County. However, when it became evident that the Mokelumne alone could not supply enough water for the San Joaquin project, the district again began planning to use the American River entitlement to meet customer needs during periods of drought.
Four years of negotiations followed between EBMUD and the Sacramento Water Forum, a coalition of Sacramento-area water interests, resulting in a proposal that would allow EBMUD to draw water from a structure near the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and move it, through new pipelines, into the existing Folsom South Canal and then into EBMUD's existing Mokelumne River aqueducts to the East Bay.
In early 1999 the negotiations broke down. Forum participants insisted that EBMUD commit to abandoning any plans to draw from Nimbus and also guarantee that no American River water would be drawn in dry years. EBMUD was unwilling to abandon the Nimbus plans, even conditionally, until an alternative was completed. Without a conjunctive use plan or some other off-stream storage available to store American River water during wet years, it was also clear that dry years were the time when the additional water would be most needed by EBMUD customers.
During the last decade, some Forum participants asked that the American River issue be included in the CALFED Bay/Delta planning process, but EBMUD was reluctant. The district's environmental process was well ahead of CALFED's, and would allow EBMUD to move ahead immediately once a project was approved. In addition, EBMUD's concern with drinking water quality was not reflected in the CALFED process, which was more focused on the issues of environmental restoration of the Delta and water supply reliability.
However, when CALFED dropped consideration of any Peripheral Canal proposal, alternative ways to meet drinking water needs became a higher CALFED priority. One result was a proposal for an exchange between agricultural users in the Friant Water Users Association, which draws water directly from the San Joaquin River upstream of the Delta, and the Metropolitan Water District, which uses Delta water to serve its urban and suburban customers in southern California. It was clear that such exchanges might also work in other parts of the CALFED planning area. Another possibility was projects that would blend Delta water with high-quality Sierra water to improve drinking water quality to meet CALFED's drinking water quality objectives.
The blending proposals interested EBMUD, which then developed a "modified" proposal for the American River. In this proposal, American River water would be drawn from the confluence structure during wet years, at a maximum rate of 155 cubic feet/second, less than one percent of the Peripheral Canal proposal considered by CALFED. The diverted water could be stored in a facility which would allow blending it with Delta water for the use of East and South Bay water agencies. The most likely storage facility would be the Los Vaqueros Reservoir owned by Contra Costa Water District, which is close to EBMUD's Mokelumne Aqueduct, and has been proposed by CALFED for expansion. Adding a connection to the South Bay Aqueduct would allow the blended water to be used by the Santa Clara Valley Water District as well.
The final CALFED Record of Decision, issued in August 2000, includes a Bay Area blending project as an additional step which could be taken to improve drinking water quality. Regular meetings are now underway between EBMUD, Sacramento water and environmental groups, and the Bureau of Reclamation to find a project which would be satisfactory to the Sacramento stakeholders. Final agreement on the EBMUD/Bureau of Reclamation contract is hoped for by the end of the year.
Additional negotiation will then need to take place on the issue of storing the American River diversion in a Bay Area facility. Under the 1990 Hodge decision, EBMUD's American River water cannot be put to use outside EBMUD's service area. In order for this Bay Area blending project to work, all of the parties to the lawsuit would probably have to petition Judge Hodge to amend his original decision for the benefit of all. In addition, if Los Vaqueros is involved, voters in the Contra Costa Water District must approve expansion of the reservoir.
A critical concern for Sacramento stakeholders will be assurances that any project will be complete and final in itself, and not become the first step in a series of increasing diversions, particularly if additional agencies are part of the blending project. Assurances that are durable and not easily undone or modified will be essential to creating an atmosphere of trust to allow such a project to move forward.
Although CALFED did not become involved in the negotiations over the American River water, inclusion of the blending project in the Record of Decision has established a framework within which any project agreed upon by EBMUD and other parties can then move forward. While the complexity of the planning is a challenge, the potential for solving multiple water supply and quality problems for many Bay Area customers is an incentive for continuing the discussions of this new strategy.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
EBMUD, 510-835-3000; http://www.ebmud.com
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) removed all uncertainty about its commitment to the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program at its meeting on September 7 in Sacramento. There will be electric cars in California's future. The automobile industry has consistently opposed the ZEV Program, maintaining that the lack of public acceptance of EVs and their high cost would doom the program to failure. However, despite the opposition of the manufacturers to the ZEV requirements, the ARB has refused to weaken the ZEV Program. Because of the lead time necessary to meet production schedules, the automakers will have to accept the mandate without further challenges.
The original ZEV Program, adopted in 1990, was part of the ARB's Low-Emission Vehicle regulations. Beginning with model years 1998 through 2000, the 7 largest auto manufacturers were required to include 2 percent ZEVs in the vehicles they offered for sale each year in California, 5 percent in model years 2001 and 2002, and 10 percent in model years 2003 and beyond.
To allow additional time for the technology to be developed, the ARB modified the regulations in 1996. The requirement for model years 1998 through 2002 was eliminated. The ARB instead entered into Memoranda of Agreement with the 7 large manufacturers to place 1,800 advanced (long-range) battery electric vehicles (EVs) in the state in the years 1998 through 2000. Because of the costs and the uncertainty of the market, manufacturers that met their quotas then stopped production.
In 1998, the ARB added flexibility to the program by allowing extremely clean advanced-technology vehicles"partial" ZEVs (PZEVs)to meet the 10 percent ZEV requirement that will begin in 2003, except that the 6 largest manufacturers—Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota—must include "full" ZEVs as 4 percent of their sales. PZEVS are to be assigned credits toward fulfilling the ZEV requirement, conditional upon their meeting criteria established by the ARB.
Several candidate technologies are vying for PZEV credit, the latest entrant being the hybrid EV. While technologically feasible, meeting all the PZEV criteria has thus far eluded all candidate vehicles, and they can receive only partial credit toward their manufacturers' 10 percent quotas. Even though the vehicles do not fully qualify as PZEVs, they will significantly lower vehicle emissions in the state. If manufacturing PZEVs is not feasible by 2003 or 2004, the 6 large auto makers and the 11 intermediate ones—BMW, Hyundai, Izusu, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Rover, Subaru, Volkswagen, and Volvo—will have to meet part of all of their 10 percent quotas with battery EVs.
The high cost of producing EVs has caused manufacturers to have serious doubts about their acceptability to consumers. Improved technology and mass production will reduce the cost, which is now about $20,000 per vehicle. The ARB assumes that when the volume of production exceeds 100,000 ZEVs, they will become cost-competitive with combustion vehicles. To stimulate the market, the ARB has offered a variety of incentives and subsidies. Funds from the state's Petroleum Violation Escrow Account have been used for grants to partially offset the cost of EVs, passed on as discounts to the lease prices of the vehicles. New funding sources must be sought, however, because the Escrow Account is nearly exhausted.
Local air districts also have programs promoting the leasing or sale of EVs. For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Vehicle Incentive Program offers grants to public agencies for leasing ZEVs. The district also grants subsidies to install public charging stations for EVs through its "Charge!" Program.
Batteries are the most expensive component of EVs. The ARB has focused research on developing batteries that are both affordable and long-range. A panel that included outside experts concluded that nickel metal hydride batteries had high performance and the longest useful life, but these are likely to remain costly for some time.
Lead acid batteries produce more waste than the advanced batteries because they don't last as long, and they fill a narrower range of driving needs. However, experience in driving EVs indicates that lead acid batteries may be more satisfactory than initially presumed. EV drivers told ARB that they had overestimated their driving needs before leasing the vehicles and that advanced batteries were not worth the extra cost. Some auto makers are concentrating on vehicles for the market sector in which limited range is not a problem.
Lead acid battery-powered EVs have also proved more satisfactory than predicted because technological advances during the past 10 years have improved the efficiency of EV component parts and of vehicle operation.
Problems with no ready solutions are arising around the lack of uniform charging standards and equipment and the different charging requirements of various types and makes of vehicles. However, battery powered ZEVs do not need an extensive refueling infrastructure—most will be recharged at work or at home. Public recharging stations allow greater range and flexibility in their use, and about 400 of these exist in the state. Some private companies offer charging service to their customers.
Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles have the potential to become another ZEV technology, but they will not be available commercially by 2003. To address fuel cell vehicle and infrastructure issues, the California Fuel Cell Partnership has been formed—a unique collaboration of auto makers (Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, and Volkswagen), energy providers (BP Amoco, Shell, and Texaco), Fuel Cell Companies (Ballard Power Systems and International Fuel Cells), and government agencies (ARB, California Energy Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, US Department of Energy, and US Department of Transportation), plus associate members with expertise in specific areas. From 2000 to 2003, the Partnership will test about 50 fuel cell cars and buses under day-to-day driving conditions.
Until the ZEV Program is firmly established, marketing research and development must be on-going, to identify applications where quiet, smooth operation, ease of driving, and low operation and maintenance costs are important attributes. The ZEV Program is not an incremental step in tightening the regulation of an existing technology. It is a huge leap into a new technology involving a major sector of the nation's industry, and the near-term costs will be high.
However, zero emission technology is essential if California is to meet the health-based state and federal clean air standards. Vehicles using petroleum-based fuels emit many pollutants, and as combustion engines age, they deteriorate and pollute more, particularly if their emission control systems fail. Battery-powered EVs are zero-emitting throughout their useful lives.
Manufacturing, storage, and delivery of petroleum-based fuel produce significant emissions from routine operations, accidents, and compliance problems. Pollution from highway traffic, refineries and distribution facilities disproportionately impacts inner-city and low-income neighborhoods. Water quality also suffers—leaking underground fuel storage tanks threaten groundwater, and motor oil contaminates surface water. The impacts of electric power generation are relatively minor.
Growth in the state's population and economy challenges its ability to reduce air pollution. Advances made under the Program may benefit not only the state but the entire country.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
California Air Resources Board, 916-322-2990; http://www.arb.ca.gov
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 415-771-6000; http://www.baaqmd.gov
The Acronym Game:
EV: electric vehicle
ZEV: zero emission vehicle (note that the E does
not stand for "electric", but "emission")
PZEV: partial ZEV (not a zero emission vehicle, but
entitled to a partial credit as one)
Increasing transportation capacity significantly in the Bay Bridge corridor and to the south is once again being considered. Although adding shoulders on a new or rebuilt east span of the Bay Bridge may help to speed the flow of traffic, unless the west span is expanded the bridge will not accommodate more cars. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has convened a Policy Committee as the first step in a San Francisco Bay Crossing study that will re-examine the options for improving travel across the Bay.
Earlier efforts to relieve the pressure on the Bay Bridge included a toll bridge proposal rejected by voters in six counties in 1972. At that time, BART was seen as the solution. In 1991, MTC's Bay Crossing Study concluded that planned improvements to BART service and the San Mateo bridge would be a satisfactory if limited answer to increased demand. The 1991 study looked at eleven options for improving transbay travel, including high-speed ferries, several new alignments for bridges or tunnels, and rail connections. Detailed analysis focused on five alternatives:
The study used 2010 as its planning horizon; preliminary cost estimates ranged from $900 million for the ferries to almost $4 billion for the BART airport link (in 1990 dollars).
The 1991 study resulted in some key findings that are still relevant. Although levels of congestion would be increasingly high, it was anticipated that improvements underway at the time, including widening of the San Mateo Bridge and more frequent BART service, would provide enough capacity for the corridor until 2010. The I-380/I-238 bridge/BART alternative had the greatest trip capacity, with the potential to reduce the duration of the peak period on the Bay Bridge by over an hour, although peak hour traffic volume on the Bay Bridge was anticipated to remain the same. However, this new bridge alternative involved significant land use impacts, including destruction of wetlands and displacement of homes and businesses. Tunnel options also had significant environmental impacts due to dredging, including water quality and disposal of large quantities of dredge spoils.
Changes in the region which would be considered in a new study of transbay travel include:
A 13-member Policy Committee for the new study includes MTC commissioners and representatives of other agencies. Seven members are MTC commissioners from San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. Six members are representatives from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Mateo County Transit District, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART, and the new Bay Area Water Transit Authority. MTC will select a consulting team in December, and work on the study will begin shortly after.
The year-long study will look at alternatives including transit (rail, bus and ferry), and operational and roadway improvements. It is expected to result in a number of findings and recommendations to improve transbay travel. While some recommendations will have the potential to be implemented fairly quickly, others, such as large-scale construction projects, will require substantial lead times for development and implementation.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
David Tannehill, MTC, 510-464-7867: http://www.mtc.ca.gov
First Policy Committee Meeting: October 11, 1:00 pm, Metro-Center Auditorium (101 Oak Street), Oakland
Development around transit stations has caught on in the Bay Area within the past five years, and transit districts have become increasingly active partners in bringing these projects to fruition. Transit villages, which are clusters of apartments, townhomes, offices and stores near transit hubs, are more popular now because tight housing and congested roads make commutes difficult for many Bay Area residents. Living close to transit makes a commute easier, as does working in an office near transit. Ready transit access to stores, services and community resources such as libraries, clinics and daycare centers can save time and travel expenses for commuters who pass through the transit village on the way to and from home or work.
Transit villages are the most visible form of transit-oriented development, but smaller projects are also taking place throughout the region. With little undeveloped land near transit facilities, most of these are classic "infill projects". Challenges include making the project compatible with neighboring uses, particularly if the residential density will be greater, and addressing noise and privacy issues for occupants. In addition, projects built near BART are usually planned for areas which were BART parking lots, and replacement parking must be provided.
BART's Strategic Plan, adopted in 1999, specifically supports transit-oriented development which is responsive to the needs of the communities served by the district. The district works with local jurisdictions on development initiated by a city, a developer or community members. According to Jeff Ordway, BART's Manager of Property Development, "transit oriented development begins with building on a station area's strengths—who but the community is better suited to identify what those strengths are?"
Some successful projects were already in place or under way before the BART plan was adopted. Award-winning Strobridge Court in Castro Valley, 96 units of affordable housing, was the first joint development project on BART-owned property. The project is within walking distance of downtown, and includes the historic Strobridge House, now a senior apartment complex, and a BART police station. In Hayward, exchanging BART land with the city made it possible to build a new City Hall and 360 units of housing.
In Oakland, most of the original BART parking area at the Fruitvale station will become part of an innovative project with a senior citizen center, a health clinic, a daycare center and a branch library in addition to almost 250 residential units (including lofts) and 70,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. It is seen as a catalyst for reviving the low-income neighborhood which was formerly avoided by many of the BART commuters who used the station.
In Richmond, where new transit village development began in April, the city's Iron Triangle neighborhood will gain 200 townhouses, houses and live/work lofts, 15,000 square feet of retail space, a cultural center and a parking garage adjacent to the BART/Amtrak intermodal station. The project is part of a larger redevelopment program for the downtown area.
In addition to working with communities around its stations to make more of the land now used for parking available for development, BART has provided funds for planning projects near stations in West Oakland and Pittsburg/Bay Point, and has been a participant in city and community planning for development near the Coliseum, MacArthur, San Leandro and Balboa Park stations. At the MacArthur station, for example, a community vision for development proved financially infeasible, but BART and the community have found an alternative project which will enlarge the Surgery Center and bring additional housing to the station area.
Transit agency partnerships with local government and developers are an important part of getting funding for transit-oriented development. At BART's Ashby Station, a complex with services and programs for the disabled has been proposed. Planning for the project is funded by BART, the city of Berkeley and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program. In Concord, TLC funding was secured to construct a pedestrian plaza linking the BART station to downtown—a second phase will link to the new JFK University campus. Another TLC grant is being used to reconstruct the 16th/Mission station plaza to reconnect the station with the community, and a capital grant is being secured for a similar project at Bay Fair station.
Developers around the region are increasingly interested in transit-oriented projects because they are proving successful. Perhaps the best illustration of how attractive these developments can be is the plan for a West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station accompanied by two parking garages, 160 housing units, a 240-room hotel and 175,000 square feet of office space. The developer will provide $60 million to build the apartments, hotel and offices. Construction bonds will be issued by a joint powers authority, including BART and ABAG, to provide $40 million for the station and garages. The bonds will be repaid by BART fares and pre-paid rent from the developer for the use of BART property, as well as by taxes generated by the development which would otherwise go to the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin. After environmental review, the project is anticipated to begin construction in mid-2001 and be finished within two years. BART is also negotiating with developers for projects at Pleasant Hill, El Cerrito del Norte and Walnut Creek stations.
Unlike BART, Caltrain cannot make much land available for development projects, but the agency is working with cities along the rail corridor as they plan for changes. Former industrial sites near Caltrain stations in Mountain View now hold nearly 800 units of housing, and Redwood City will build 500 apartments, townhomes and condominiums two blocks from the Caltrain station. Transit-oriented development may also be the future use for the former Bay Meadows racetrack site in San Mateo.
Caltrain staff also helped the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments to develop a policy that budgets funding to encourage housing near transit. Cities can receive up to $2000 per bedroom for housing that is built within one-third mile of a transit station; funds received under the program can be used for a variety of transportation purposes.
Transit agencies which do not own land are participating in planning for transit hubs where buses meet BART or other transportation modes, and are taking other roles in encouraging development along transit corridors. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) is involved in corridor planning along San Pablo Avenue, a partnership effort involving two counties and several cities. A Major Investment Study on a corridor extending from Berkeley to San Leandro is also under way. In Emeryville, AC Transit has worked with the city to establish conditions of use for redevelopment projects affecting curbs, pavement, canopies and lighting. This will create rider-friendly areas at "superstops" at major intersections and transfer points.
In San Francisco's Visitacion Valley, one proposal for the former Schlage Lock site would place a mixed-use development adjacent to the future Caltrain/Third Street (Muni) light rail intermodal station. It would include daycare, affordable housing, a branch library, City College extension, and open space. San Francisco is also considering a program, Better Neighborhoods 2002, which would remodel three neighborhoods into transit villages where residents could take advantage of particularly good Muni access: Upper Market Street, near two Muni Metro Stations and the new F-line streetcar; the industrial Central Waterfront along the future Third Street light rail line; and Balboa Park, served by Muni Metro, several bus lines and BART.
Conventional rail is also a development incentive. In Emeryville, the second phase of the EmeryStation office and retail project near the Amtrak station is getting under way. Apartments and lofts will be added by using the air rights above a new parking garage.
Transit-oriented development is an important component of the new "smart growth" concept. While these development proposals are seen as groundbreaking in Bay Area communities today, in another five years they may be the standard for development near transit corridors and hubs. By that time, the region's residents will expect housing, commercial space and community service facilities to be transit-accessible.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Jeffrey Ordway, BART, 510-464-6114; jordway@bart.gov, http://www.bart.gov
John Nemeth, Caltrain, 650-508-6306; http://www.caltrain.org
Tina Konvalinka, AC Transit, 510-891-4754; http://www.actransit.com
A study of the economic benefits of regional parks will be released at a luncheon forum, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm November 2, 2000, at the Brazil Room in Tilden Regional Park, Berkeley. Sponsors of the forum include the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Economic Development Alliance for Business, the Bay Area Council, the Contra Costa Council, the Contra Costa Economic Partnership, the Tri-Valley Business Council, and the Regional Parks Foundation. Admission is free but seating is limited and reservations are necessary—contact Rosemary Cameron, EBRPD, 510-344-2003.
The study focuses on the impacts of regional parks on economic indicators such as quality of life, property values, environmental preservation, health, education, and benefits to the local economy from park district investments and visitor spending. It is intended as a tool for assessing the role of regional parks in balancing the East Bay's economic growth with open space and agricultural preservation, housing, transportation and education needs.
The study, commissioned by EBRPD, is being completed by Walter F. Keiser, Managing Principal of Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. The information is expected to be of particular interest to local officials, parks and recreation professionals, community and regional planners, and business and environmental leaders. Participants at the forum will receive a summary version of the study results.
Read the Monitor's article on this study in the December 2000/January 2001 issue.