California High Speed Rail Central Valley

Nick Orsi, Jason Garnham, Julia Cuprys, Megan Huerta, Hyung Kim, Christopher Rhodes, Krit Kijviwattanakarn, Jonathan Abelson, Sean Minor, and Michael Corwin

12/5/2014

The proposed California High-Speed Rail (HSR) system is an ongoing issue affecting many regions. One such region is the Central Valley. The following report will begin with the actions taken since Discussion 2. Next, the degree of success our group has had in achieving our goals will be summarized. After this, the dynamic interests and strategies of the Central Valley, Atherton, Palo Alto/Menlo Park, and Caltrans/CHSRA groups will be reviewed. Finally, the feasibility of reaching a goal where every region benefits from the CHSR will be discussed.

1

Actions Taken

The Central Valley Coalition, as always, is a loosely bound organization with many

diverging interests. Our primary goal and the main focus of our attention has been the

strengthening of this group through communication and the building of mutual respect between

individual communities and the divergent rural and urban representatives. We believe this

unified voice is vital, not just for expressing our views and needs to CalTrans/CHSRA, but to

helping effectively disseminate information and changes in planning to our entire region.

In the spirit of open dialogue and communication, all of the following was discussed with

CalTrans/CHSRA representatives during a lunch meeting Wednesday, December 3rd. This

meeting was held to ensure both groups were still on the same page and any actions taken

would be in complement to the actions being taken by CalTrans. CalTrans did not request any

further actions to help them in their process.

There are a few things we need to do to hold up our end of our previous agreements

with CalTrans/CHSRA. The first involves nominating a minimum of 10 people to represent

Central Valley rural communities on the Agricultural Working Group (AWG). From these 10

people, CalTrans/CHSRA will choose no less than 3 to serve on the AWG from this point

forward. It is believed these representatives will not only give a clearer voice to rural and

farming concerns, but also help bring the group’s research and conclusions back to the Central

Valley community as a whole.

Similarly, the Central Valley Coalition needs to nominate the same number of people to

fill the same number of positions on the new TOD Working Group. These nominations should

represent population centers in cities of proposed stations, namely, Merced, Sacramento,

Fresno, and Bakersfield. The populations of these cities are divided on their feelings about

locations of stations, as is seen in the bitter ongoing fight in Bakersfield. Initially the HSR station

was proposed 7 miles outside of downtown, a move that was unanimously voted down by the

city council in 1999, in favor of a downtown location. However, in June of 2014, “the Bakersfield

City Council voted 6-1 to sue the CHSRA over its choice of a downtown station.”1

In response to the disagreement over the location of the Bakersfield high speed rail

station, a survey was created within our group to come to a consensus on this issue. The survey

consisted of three possible station sites to vote on (See Figure 1), as well as an option to

identify another potential site. Site 1 is located just east of a library, while Site 2 is in close

proximity to a hospital. Site 3 is located in the outskirts of town, with little to no impact on

businesses or public spaces.

2

Figure 1: Location of Possible Transit Stations within Bakersfield

The results for this survey can be seen in Figure 2 below. Based on the responses

received, Site 2 is the favored choice among the city council members and concerned citizens

represented within our group, with an approval of 44%. Site 1 followed closely with 33%, and

Site 3 and Other were the least popular with only 11% each. It will be recommended to Caltrans

that Site 2 is chosen as Bakersfield’s station location. This method of using community input is

a vital part in the planning process and will help build support for the project.

Figure 2: Survey Results for the Transit Station Location within Bakersfield

3

It appears many communities struggle the most when state agencies, such as Caltrans,

act without adequate community input in the planning process. It is proposed other station cities

are supported by the state and federal government in pursuing funds like the City of Fresno.

“The council [in October] voted 5-2 to spend $1 million in grants for a consultant who will dig into

all sorts of planning details connected to the proposed high-speed rail station in downtown,”

according to the Fresno Bee.2

This funding came from a mix of state, federal, and local sources and will allow Fresno

to hire its own consultant to help the city plan a station location itself. This puts the city in the

driver’s seat, so to speak, and virtually ensures city support in the final station location decision.

It is highly recommended other urban centers follow the same template. It should be noted that

cities will continue to need CalTrans/CHSRA support in pursuing grants and funding for not just

station location planning, but TOD planning in the surrounding areas.

As important as TOD planning is in preventing further urban sprawl, which is one of the

only areas both urban and rural communities see eye-to-eye, changing zoning ordinances

across the region to protect farmland and limit sprawl is possibly even more important.

CalTrans/CHSRA has agreed to advocate for state support in the changing of zoning laws. To

help facilitate this process, the Central Valley Coalition will gather the existing zoning

ordinances across the affected parts of the region. This clearinghouse of zoning information will

help communities identify how their priorities can be reflected in changing zoning regulations.

There is little for our coalition to do on the action items involving farming access and

construction schedules. Therefore, it is the coalition’s duty to keep vocal about these items to

ensure they stay on CalTrans/CHSRA’s radar as the project begins. We ask that bypasses are

built in such a way to minimize farming impact, and any lag time between the building of access

and building of the railway are kept in the offseason for the farms in question. Likewise, the

coalition will make sure to keep CalTrans/CHSRA informed on the schedule of harvest times so

any contractors can be encouraged to schedule slow times in construction to coincide with the

harvest. This is not only helpful from an environmental/dust mitigation perspective, but

necessary to ensure an adequate number of workers are available during harvest time and not

tied up in construction labor jobs.

Research has been performed into available new irrigation systems and their costs, as

many will be lost during construction. If adequate funding is available, this also gives the

opportunity for the Central Valley to upgrade existing systems to more water efficient systems,

which will offset some of the effects from the drought that has ravaged the state. There are

4

several methods for crop irrigation systems such as center-pivot, drip, flood, furrow, rotation,

sprinkler, sub irrigation, traveling gun, supplemental, and surface.3

One of the most efficient irrigation systems from those is drip irrigation. Drip irrigation

precisely controls the application of water and fertilizer by allowing water to drip slowly near the

plant roots through a network of valves, pipes, tubing, and emitters. The main advantages of

drip irrigation are possibly reduced water use, joint management of irrigation and fertilization,

reduced pest problems, simplicity, low pumping needs, automation, adaptation, and production

advantages. However, the drip irrigation requires an economic investment of approximately

$500 to $1,200 or more per acre. Part of this cost is a capital investment, which is useful for

several years, and the remaining cost is due to the annual cost of disposable parts. The drip

irrigation system has many components, such as a mazzei injector, dosatron injector, pressure

gauge, water meter, water meter fittings, water filter, backflow prevention system, ball valves,

irrigation water main line, PVC fittings, solenoids valve, irrigation controller, and pressure

regulators. The annual maintenance cost includes irrigation water sub main line, drip tape, poly-

to-drip tape connectors, tape-to-tape connectors, flush caps, and replacement filters.4

The issue for these systems is therefore a financial one. For irrigation systems lost

during construction, Caltrans has agreed to provide funding up to a value that is between the

price of the current irrigation system and the price of an upgraded irrigation system. Finding

resources to fund the rest of this cost is our region’s responsibility. One potential resource to

fulfill this cost is the Water Bond 2014, which includes the recently passed Proposition 1.

Proposition 1 is a $7.5 billion general obligation bond measure approved by California voters on

Nov. 4, 2014. Proposition 1 will fund investments in water projects and programs as part of a

statewide, comprehensive water plan for California.5

The Central Valley region could be eligible for a total share of about $2 billion from the

Water Act of 2014. Proposition 1 covers a wide range of options toward recovering from the

drought, such as the state spending $520 million to clean up water sources in disadvantaged

communities and improve public water systems for residents in Valley communities who can’t

drink water that flows from their faucets. It also includes $395 million that would be spent on

flood protection projects that are sorely needed, especially in the Sacramento area. $295 million

is aimed at improving the aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The bond

also includes $810 million to prepare for the next drought, climate change, and sea level rise,

$725 million for recycling and conservation, and $1.49 billion for restoring and protecting rivers,

lakes, and watersheds.6

5

Regarding TOD (Transit-Oriented Development), California High speed rail will provide

the Central Valley with improved access to the rest of the state, putting the Central Valley’s

residents only one to two hours away from California’s major employment and population

centers. This change in the Central Valley’s geography of access will in-turn impact the course

of future development within the region. At the regional scale, the increased accessibility

afforded by high speed rail can serve to concentrate development in and around communities

with stations. Such demand can shift the impetus of new growth away from the Central Valley’s

agricultural land and reorient it towards the established urban centers.7

Because of the many benefits TOD design provides, the Central Valley region has taken

several steps to foster this design. One is to apply for state grant funding. The cities of Stockton,

Merced, and Fresno in the Central Valley prepared TOD design proposals around the high

speed rail stations in the hopes of receiving state grant funding for such projects. Unfortunately,

none of the Central Valley cities were chosen for the TOD Housing Program in the latest Round

3 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).8,9,10 Another step our region has taken is to establish a

regional land-use planning body for the purpose of coordinating urban and rural TOD and

mitigating sprawl. It will also be necessary to identify respective MPOs and recommend policies

and practices, based on negotiated urban and rural interests.

In summary, the Central Valley is continuing to make great strides to further unify their

voice. This region was arguably dealt the worst hand in the planning of this project. Our

communities have been able to seek a better approach to achieve our goals than simply

throwing money at lawsuits, by organizing ourselves and our priorities, communicating our

needs to Caltrans, and researching the best course of action to minimize harmful effects and

produce benefits from this project, such as TOD developments and upgraded irrigation systems.

There are still many hurdles to jump in the coming months as construction begins, but the

Central Valley takes pride in our efforts to take the best actions possible to help our

communities thrive in this time of great change.

Degree of Success

Central Valley cities are, for the most part, ecstatic about the economic development that

is expected from implementation of the CHSR project. Connectivity to the state’s economic

centers is expected to bring employment and population growth as companies and workers

seek to benefit from lower property costs and easier mobility. Thanks to sustained political

momentum behind the project (with Governor Brown’s reelection), judicial victories guaranteeing

6

a certain level of funding, and re-gaining public acceptance, it is Central Valley’s urban

communities that stand to benefit from this project the most.

The rural areas have, by far, had the most significant resistance to the CHSR. The best-

case scenario for the farmers and rural communities along CHSR’s path is for the project to be

abandoned. Any scenario for implementation results in destruction of farmland, disruption of

properties and irrigation systems, and physical separation of rural communities. Facing limited

financial and organizational resources, representatives of the Central Valley agricultural and

rural communities have adopted a pragmatic view, in light of the seeming inevitability of the

project. Their goal is to minimize the damage by exploring technical solutions, identifying

opportunities for funding and research, and strengthening regional coordination and

representation in negotiating with Caltrans and other state agencies. In this regard these

interests have been somewhat successful, finding a willing ear at Caltrans and enthusiastic

partners in Central Valley cities. The results of these efforts will remain to be seen, as design

options that mitigate impacts bring extra costs that the state has proven unreliable in accounting

for or reporting. Further, the agricultural valley’s biggest challenge lies in its size: coordinating

and communicating the needs, desires, and strategies for a large, diverse, and economically

constrained population has proven difficult, especially in the face of planning by the highly

organized and professional state agencies. Central Valley communities have ultimately

succeeded in finding willing partners in negotiation, but at the expense of losing the fight for

their best interests.

Looking at political and economic interests, within Central Valley specifically, our

resources are essentially tapped out financially due to lawsuits and the significant struggle in

attempts to get organized as a unified voice and meet together. However, with our recent

efforts of organizing and finding proper representation, we are working toward receiving state

grants to help finance TOD and irrigation replacements and upgrades. The CHSR could

ultimately have a positive impact on the state as a whole, and hopefully within the Central

Valley, as it is maintained and operated properly. It offers the opportunity for an increase in

tourism and commuting, which could greatly benefit the college town in Davis and the main

governing city of the area, Sacramento, as well as boost the economic value of the area as a

whole. This is only possible however, if minimal impact to the rural areas is maintained, as

economically that is the backbone of this area. California stands under the spotlight as the first

state in the U.S. to plan and produce a High Speed Rail system of this magnitude. If successful,

especially within the Central Valley as it is seen as the region most impacted by the project, it

7

will open up the possibilities to more systems across the country and push toward better

transportation, less congestion, and a more sustainable future.

Dynamic Interests and Strategies

The interests and opinions of people can be dynamic, and as a result, strategies must

also be dynamic to accomplish these interests. The reason this dynamic nature exists is

because interests change with time due to changing conditions, exposure to new perspectives,

input from surrounding stakeholders, and access to greater information. All of these things have

been ongoing factors in this project, and as a result, the Central Valley, Atherton, and Palo

Alto/Menlo Park interests and strategies have changed in one way or another.

Central Valley

We found Central Valley is made up of many different stakeholders, but it can be general

broken into two main sectors: the urban sector and the rural sector. Of all the stakeholders

represented in this project, only the urban sector stayed consistent with their interests

throughout the project. The urban group within Central Valley believes the high-speed rail

project offers huge opportunities for economic growth within the cities. The rail would help lower

the physical barriers of entry to the economic opportunities available in the San Francisco Bay

area in the forms of successful companies and higher education. Because these interests were

largely stable with the urban sector, the strategy to remain cooperative with Caltrans/CHSRA

remained unchanged as well.

Within the rural group there has been a significant change of interests. At first we were

completely against the CHSR project, as we could see no benefit from the project due to the

following impacts:

1. Loss of farmland

2. Less farmland access due to bisecting railway

3. Loss of community with urban sprawl

4. Negative environmental impacts such as the prevention of bees pollinating plants

5. Loss of irrigation systems

To accomplish these interests, the rural sector strategies focused on stopping the CHSR

project through lawsuits and non-negotiations with Caltrans/CHSRA. Changing conditions after

the 1st discussion, such as supportive rulings in the court for CHSRA, the re-election of Jerry

Brown, and a dwindling source of funds made the rural sector realize the futility of continued

resistance.

8

We were therefore forced to change our views to mitigating of our original concerns,

which developed the following new interests:

1. Gain better representation within committees

2. Prevent urban sprawl with TOD planning

3. Gain upgrades with impacted irrigation systems, also alleviating current drought

conditions

4. Prevention of farmland loss through representation in committees and TOD planning

To accomplish these new interests, our strategies quickly changed towards actively

seeking an alliance with Caltrans/CHSRA. We decided to fight for the above interests in

exchange for compliance from the rural sector for the CHSR project. To ease negotiations with

this group, we found possible funding sources from the state to meet Caltrans/CHSRA

somewhere in the middle to help finance our above interests.

As mentioned in the “Actions” section, our strategies have continued to follow these new

interests. We have continued to meet with Caltrans/CHSRA to further our interests, and we

have made transit station locating a priority within our urban group in order to minimize urban

sprawl and increase our regions opportunity to draw from state TOD grants.

Atherton

In the city of Atherton, the original interest was to stop the project altogether. This group

saw no benefits and large amounts of economic waste from this project. They were very

concerned about the potential negative impacts on the community, such as an influx of

travelers, noise from the train, decreased property values, and chiefly, aesthetics and loss of

beauty to their town. Original strategies were therefore geared towards halting the project by

any means possible. Lawsuits, protests, and the formation of a coalition against high-speed rail

were all strategies Atherton was actively pursuing.

During the 2nd discussion, Atherton accepted the CHSR project would happen. In order

to achieve minimal impact on their community, allow other cities to take advantage of the

project, and economic waste, Atherton changed their interest in stopping the project to

redirecting the route away from their community. Strategies to accomplish this interest involved

the proposal of redirecting the route through Altamont to reach San Francisco. They also

proposed auditing Caltrans/CHSRA to determine how efficient and honest this group has been

during the project.

After the 2nd discussion, many questions were brought up as to Atherton’s true concern

for economic waste due to the gross economic costs the re-route would present compared to

9

the alternative trenching or below grade rail tracks. Atherton made it known they were not

previously aware of these options before the meeting and are now considering those

alternatives. However, these below grade alternatives still represent a significant cost to

execute.

Palo Alto/Menlo Park

Much like Atherton, Palo Alto/Menlo Park were originally interested in outright stopping

the CHSR project, and so had similar strategies to Atherton during the 1st discussion. During the

2nd discussion though, this group had a drastic change in interests, much like the rural group did

within Central Valley. Rather than viewing the project in terms of the negative impacts it could

produce, they focused their interests on obtaining the benefits of increased travel while

minimizing the impacts on their community lifestyle.

To achieve these interests, this group allied itself with Caltrans/CHSRA after negotiating

for several conditions. First, they want the new rail to utilize the original right-of-way of current

Caltrans lines to minimize the impact on property values. They are pushing for easy

accessibility, convenient location, and off-site parking because increased traffic to gain access

to a station is a large concern. Bus lines would also be added to and from the station to allow

those who parked off-site access to the station. Lastly, they are still concerned with aesthetics

and noise, so to minimize these impacts they have asked for below grade tracks and limits on

the hours of construction. Another strategy Palo Alto/Menlo Park is using is to tap into the

resources available with the successful organizations in their regions. They are hoping to

achieve funding for upgraded transit stations from Facebook and Google. Also, they are seeking

to produce a revised project EIS that will be evaluated by experts at Stanford University.

Palo Alto/Menlo Park are continuing down this strategy, but have made a new interest of

getting more community feedback. To accomplish this interest, they have strategies to conduct

studies and surveys of their community to interact with their educated and vocal citizen base.

Caltrans/CHSRA

Caltrans/CHSRA main interest throughout the project has been to build the California

High Speed Rail. Their interest in the level of cost to do this has changed though. In Discussion

1, the group was interested in completing the project with as little money spent as possible. To

accomplish this, several strategies were utilized. Short cuts were taken in ridership estimates to

inflate rates and achieve more funding. Caltrans/CHSRA also ignored the concerns and voices

from the affected areas in order to gain state approval. These strategies have backfired on this

group though, as they have faced stiff resistance in the project through legal battles and

10

protests. In response to this opposition, Caltrans/CHSRA changed their interest for the 2nd

discussion to completing the project at whatever cost is needed. To accomplish this interest, the

group is now willing to hear concerns and spend more money for possible solutions in order to

gain community support and prevent any more financially taxing lawsuits. Within the Central

Valley specifically, we have discussed the lengths to which they are willing to go in order to

make the project as successful for everyone as possible. They have also agreed to meet the

concerns of the other regions by coming up with new designs, such as below-grade rails, using

only two rail tracks instead of four, and smart parking. Ultimately, it seems Caltrans/CHSRA

have taken positive steps forward with their strategies to be more communicative with the

regions affected by this project. However, it remains to be seen whether Caltrans/CHSRA will

be able to follow through with the many promises they have made to each region, due to the

economic demands each requires.

Feasibility of Reaching a Solution Where Everyone Benefits

It is perfectly clear the rural areas and agricultural interests of the Central Valley

impacted by the CHSR project simply will not benefit from it. Economic growth results from the

rail will likely concentrate in the cities and major institutions. Possible negative impacts to rural

areas include sprawling development, rising housing costs resulting in increased socio-

economic spatial segregation, and increased competition for limited resources (such as water

and electricity). The imbalance of power and resources that favors urban communities will

worsen, reinforcing rural communities’ lack of political clout at the state level. Certain negative

impacts are destruction of farmland and infrastructure and imposition of a physical barrier

across communities.

Though they appear to have little in common with Central Valley’s rural communities,

many of the affluent suburban communities along the proposed path of the CHSR, such as

Atherton, seem to believe they will not benefit from the project as proposed. Already served by

regional commuter rail service and well-connected to regional economic centers by the freeway

system, these communities seek to prevent the noise, aesthetic, and physical impacts of the

project on their communities. Caltrans, in negotiations with area representatives, discusses bold

design interventions that mitigate some of the negative impacts of concern to these

communities, but serious discussion regarding escalating project costs has not ensued. The

overall question is whether California voters at the state level will support ballooning costs

stemming from preservation of select wealthy communities’ character. With political winds

shifting across the country, it is in Caltrans’ long term interest to remain clear and accountable

11

regarding project budgets. Significant expense increases that benefit only a few will likely result

in decreasing support at all levels of the state and federal political spectrum. Caltrans has made

little effort, on the other hand, to emphasize the benefits that high speed rail can bring to these

communities. The bottom line is the grand promises Caltrans representatives have made for

every negotiating party cannot realistically be fulfilled in the context of limited and contentious

financial backing for the project. There are certain to be losers in the CHSR game, some of

whom, such as the impacted farming communities, do not really stand to benefit at all.

Thus, it appears the most likely winners of a CHSR are California’s cities, state

transportation agencies, and Governor Jerry Brown. The economic development of Central

Valley cities, expanding locational opportunities for companies and employees, and improved

overall intercity mobility, are benefits that concentrate on California’s urban businesses and

residents. Ensuring funding, jobs, and expanding scope of its mission, state agencies such as

Caltrans win big with a continuation of the project. Construction, operation, and maintenance will

assure thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in budget appropriations for decades to come.

Lastly, implementation of a CHSR will undoubtedly become Governor Jerry Brown’s most

important and enduring legacy, should it be completed and maintained without interruption from

political opponents.

When a long-term view is considered, a more favorable and cohesive view of the shared

benefits of a CHSR system emerges. If the project is successfully implemented and well-

maintained and operated, it does have the potential to benefit the state as a whole. First, it puts

California back on the map of places that pursue state-of-the-art public infrastructure systems

that benefit its people and economy. California’s public institutions, such as universities and

highways, were once the finest in the nation and served as anchors for the state’s incredible

economic growth and high quality of life for its residents. This project demonstrates a real

commitment to combating transportation-related constraints on economic and housing

development, highway congestion, and carbon emissions issues. Studies examining similar

projects in other regions indicate the benefits flow throughout their respective regions, with

acceptance growing over time as transportation systems and development patterns evolve in

response to society’s changing needs. There is reason to believe today’s contention and

disagreement will become, 30 years or 50 years in the future, a nearly universal acceptance and

dependence on an essential infrastructure and service. Future generations of Californians might

even be surprised to learn the system they depend on and cannot imagine living without

engendered so much controversy when it was built.

12

References

1. Cruickshank, R. (2014, May 29) Bakersfield Was Right in 1999. Retrieved on November

30, 2014, from http://www.cahsrblog.com/2014/05/bakersfield-was-right-in-1999/

2. Hostetter, G. (2014, Oct 2) Fresno finally accepts $1 million to plan high-speed rail

section. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/10/02/4157423_fresno-finally-accepts-1-

million.html?rh=1

3. USGS. (2014, Mar 17) Irrigation: How farmers irrigate fields. Retrieved November 30,

2014, from http://water.usgs.gov/edu/irquicklook.html

4. University of Florida. (2008, July). Drip-irrigation systems for small conventional

vegetable farms and organic vegetable farms. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs388

5. ACWA. (2014). Water Bond 2014: Proposition 1. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.acwa.com/sites/default/files/post/state-legislation/2014/11/updated-

proposition-1-fact-sheet.pdf

6. Bee Editorial Board. (2014, October 6). The Bee recommends: Pass Proposition 1 water

bond and invest in California’s future. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/10/06/4164381_the-bee-recommends-pass-

proposition.html?rh=1

7. CHSRA. (2014). Sustainability. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Green_Practices/sustainability.html

8. Deakin, E. (2008, July 31). Transit Oriented Development for High Speed Rail (HSR) in

the Central Valley, California: Design Concepts for Stockton and Merced. Retrieved

November 30, 2014, from

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/sustainability/Sustainability%20D

esign%20Concepts%20for%20Stockton%20and%20Merced-1.pdf

9. Deakin, E., Duduta, N., Shirgaokar M., Tal, G. (2010, June). Transit-Oriented

Development (TOD) Design Proposals for Fresno. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/sustainability/Transit-

Oriented%20Development%20(TOD)%20Design%20Protocals%20for%20Fresno.pdf

10. California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2013-2014). Round 3

Notice of Funding Availability. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/tod/TOD_Round_3_Award_List_031914.pdf

13

Contributions

-Jason Garnham: set up shared GoogleDoc, helped coordinate group meeting, attended group writing session 11/30, wrote “Feasibility of Reaching Solution Where Everybody Benefits” and “Degree of Success”, participated in TOD location survey, minor editing of completed draft. - Hyung Kim: attended group writing session 11/30, participated in TOD location survey, wrote Actions Taken part with others especially researched and wrote about the new irrigation system, how the fund is going so far for the Water Bond 2014 and TOD, minor editing on the draft, and printed the final paper. -Christopher Rhodes: assisted in researching and developing sections about other groups; their interests, goals, and changes. Participated with group writing session on Sunday 11/30, in TOD location survey, discussions on TOD and impacts within Central Valley, and meetings after class. -Jonathan Abelson: wrote section about how our strategies have changed including part of the “dynamic interests” section, attended all group and after class sessions, participated in TOD location survey, partial final draft editing and formatting, participated fully in group discussions, led team that identified how our past strategies have changed. -Krit Kijviwattanakarn- Researched and added information on the dynamic interests of Central Valley and other groups. Participated in the TOD Location Survey. Edited the first draft and the final draft. -Michael Corwin: added to “Actions Taken” and minor additions to several other sections, participated in TOD location survey, added results summary and graphics of TOD Location Survey, edited first draft and final draft. -Megan Huerta: Brainstormed initial list of potential next actions to take, participated in group writing session 11/30 (was late), researched potential station locations in Bakersfield in order to set up survey, ensured enough group members participated in survey and compiled the results, wrote and researched “actions taken” section except for irrigation portion, coordinated and participated in meeting with CalTrans group with Nick Orsi on 12/3. -Julia Cuprys: Met after class on Wednesday before Thanksgiving and then on 11/30 (was late), added to Degree of Success section regarding political and economic success, organized and wrote a large portion of Dynamic Interests, took TOD Location Survey, major editing and formatting of all drafts including intro and references and compilation of final draft. -Nick Orsi: Helped to organize meeting times (after class on Wednesday before Thanksgiving break, Sunday on 11/30), wrote starting ideas for original “Dynamic Interests” section, conducted edits for final draft (reorganization and rewrite of new “Dynamic Interests and Strategies” section to address required bullet points in handout), participated in meeting with Caltrans group with Megan Huerta on 12/3

-Sean Minor: Attended after class Wednesday meeting and 11/30 group work day. Worked on the evolving strategies section and participated in the in-group survey, minor editing.