Editorial: Fighting over Mt. Tam trails is a long Marin tradition

Given Marin’s long history of conflict over the use of its trails up and down Mount Tamalpais, it comes as no surprise that the Marin Municipal Water District’s trial to open some of its watershed trails to bicyclists is now being challenged in court.

Marin is well-known as being the birthplace of mountain biking. But it is also well-known for its longstanding battle over bicyclists’ use of parkland trails.

The MMWD’s decision to open nine of its trails to bikes, including class 1, pedal-assisted electric bikes for two-year trials was advanced after months of debate and discussions.

The district may have thought it had struck a compromise, coming up with a plan, it says, that protects the environment of the watershed while enhancing public access.

But local environmental groups long involved in this debate – and MMWD discussions – filed a lawsuit halting the trial and contending MMWD had failed to first conduct a full environmental study into the possible ramifications of the trial.

The same legal strategy has been successfully used locally before to sidetrack plans to open trails to trails.

MMWD’s compliance with state environmental rules should have been bulletproof.

Currently, MMWD restricts bikes to fire roads and e-bikes are prohibited.

The lawsuit has led Marin Judge Andrew Sweet to impose a temporary restraining order halting the two trials, ruling that the only trial that’s going to take place is going to be in court.

The plaintiffs – the Marin Conservation League, the Marin Audubon Society and the Marin Chapter of the California Native Plant Society – argue the trials will cause environmental damage to the watershed and the wildlife it hosts.

Scarce and rare plants may be trampled, nesting northern spotted owls may be disturbed and the high pitch of the sound of e-bikes could disrupt bats that make their home in the watershed, the plaintiffs argue.

The district, they argue, should have first thoroughly analyzed potential environmental impacts of the trials before giving them a try.

Judge Sweet ruled against the district’s argument that bikes are already illegally using the trails.

For years, hikers and environmental groups have resisted moves to expand bike access to Tam’s many single-track trails. Besides environmental damage, they say it’s a safety hazard for hikers, often claiming that bike riders are not only on the trails illegally, but ride too fast.

Marin bike advocates have tried for years to answer those complaints by encouraging riders to abide by the rules and supporting the construction and improvement of trails designed to accommodate both hikers and bike riders.

Proponents of allowing e-bikes say the pedal-assisted two-wheelers would allow people, including seniors, for whom pedaling up and down fire roads and trails is too rigorous. It would allow them to enjoy the recreational benefits of the watersheds and reach areas that are now physically beyond their capabilities.

In short, both say, it amounts to a reasonable expansion of public use of public lands.

Understandably, local bike advocacy groups are disappointed by the lawsuit and ruling. They thought they had an agreement, a two-year chance to prove that bike access won’t pose a safety hazard or damage the watershed’s environment.

Instead, they have to wait for a courtroom trial that may lead to waiting even longer for a study and more public hearings and debate.

This entrenched struggle, by both sides, has gone on in Marin for more than four decades.

That MMWD’s trials are being sidetracked is another sign of this polarizing debate.

Maybe the findings of a science-based study will change that political landscape.