Letter: County ag thrown under the train? (Dec. 23)
Thrown under the train. That best describes what the California High Speed Rail (CHSR) system’s proposed A-3 route does to Madera County agriculture and the public water agencies delivering water to County farms. Nowhere else anywhere along any part of the CHSR route, from San Diego to Sacramento and across the valley going into the Bay area, are agricultural lands and the water agencies that serve them impacted anywhere near as severely or as extensively as they are in Madera County.
Moreover, reviewing the proposed CHSR route presented to voters as Proposition 1A in November 2008, it’s clear Madera County voters, if not Madera County’s elected officials, were sold a “bill of goods” by rail proponents. Maps of the then-proposed route show the CHSR traversing the County north to south adjacent to the existing railroad right-of-way, the A-2 Route, which would have minimal, not entirely unreasonable, impacts to county farms and water delivery systems.
For Madera Irrigation District and the growers we serve, the impacts of the A-3 route will be substantial and include:
+ Severing and requiring piece meal alteration and/or reconstruction of nearly every District canal and pipeline water delivery system and facilities rights-of-way west of Highway 99,
+ Higher water rates and land based charges due to:
1. Increased operating costs resulting from the inability of District staff and equipment to travel directly and efficiently (you can’t get there from here) between work sites and while operating water delivery systems,
2. A greater number of District staff and vehicles being required to complete time critical tasks due to travel problems noted above,
3. Lower revenues due to reduced land based assessments as lands are taken out of production for the HSRS route and/or become economically unviable after being carved into small disconnected parcels, and
4. Fewer acres being farmed to repay obligations for the construction of federal and district water delivery and storage facilities.
Obviously there are no “upsides” and far too many downsides to the Madera Irrigation District and the farmers we serve. And looking at the route maps, I can’t imagine the situation is any different in other areas of the county. Which raises the question: How did the A-3 route become the preferred alternative, especially given that purported problems and issues associated with the A-2 route through Madera County and City of Madera are, arguably at least, little or no different than those encountered traversing any other county or community in the valley?
CHSR officials and consultants at the Dec. 18 CHSR public workshop were long on hyperbole about how terrific HSR will be but short on explanations as to their rationale for proposing to decimate Madera County agriculture. In short all they and the presented materials admitted was that the impact to Madera County agriculture would be “high,” a profound understatement.
If there is anything positive to be said at this juncture it is that there is still, or at least should be, a lengthy open public process required before the final decision on routing is supposed to be made. During that process it is of paramount importance that farmers and landowners express their views in writing to the High Speed Rail Authority and to their elected representatives at both local and state levels.
This can begin by attending and expressing your views at the Madera County Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Jan. 5, at which Supervisor Bigelow is reportedly going to introduce a declaration calling for any CHSR alignment to be within existing rail corridors.
Letting our concerns be known, we can at least hope to prevent Madera County agriculture from being thrown under the CHSR train.
Lance W. Johnson,
general manager of Madera Irrigation District
This letter is in response to the article in the Madera Tribune (Friday Dec. 18) regarding the High Speed Rail meeting. It was interesting to see and hear from farmers and residents that live in the proposed area for the A-3 route (runs west of the city of Madera through farmland).
Many were not aware of this route until a few weeks ago. I didn’t find out about this A-3 route until the week before from Julia Berry, executive secretary of the Madera County Farm Bureau. I then mentioned it at the Dec. 8 meeting of the Madera Irrigation District. Everyone was just as surprised as I was regarding this proposed train route. Speaking with the MID General Manager Lance Johnson and Chief Engineer Dick Tzou, neither of them had any knowledge of meetings from the rail authority, nor from the county or city officials in regards to the purposed rail route. In fact, Johnson said he has a monthly meeting with city and county officials and nothing was ever said.
Looking at some of the literature that was printed by the High Speed Rail Authority, it says that route A-3 was supported by the community. Further investigation shows that the Madera County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to back the A-3 as the preferred route, with A-2 (Union Pacific right-of-way) as their second choice. Only Supervisor Bigelow voted no.
I spoke to Mr. Bigelow at the meeting, and he stated that he wrote a letter to the High Speed Rail Authority. The letter indicated that he was against the A-3 route and asked the other board members to sign on, and none would. I also spoke with Supervisor Max Rodriguez who said that he was fully against the A-3 route. In fact, he said that he thought that the A-2, which parallels State Route 99, was the best route, since it was already a (rail and highway) transportation route. He added that this area was blighted and some of the properties in this area had already been purchased to be redeveloped.
What was the Board of Supervisors thinking? Or were they thinking? Mr. Bigelow said that he was going to try and put this high speed rail issue regarding the A-3 route on the agenda for the Jan. 5 board meeting. If he couldn’t, he still encouraged all those wanting to speak to come and speak during the public forum at the beginning of the meeting.
This is the time to get involved in this huge issue and to let the Board of Supervisors and the High Speed Rail Authority hear our voices. You might think that this cross country slice of the rail line won’t bother you, but it will in many ways. Think about how you travel in and about the county. What about the MUSD buses and how they will be impacted picking up your children to take them to and from school? What about the public safety? How will this affect fire, police and ambulance travel when minutes count? Right now the roads in Madera County travel north and south. The avenues run east and west, the High Speed Rail Authority said that they would have under/over passes every mile or two. Do any of you really believe this? I sure don’t.
I personally think this High Speed Rail idea is silly, but the reality is that it’s coming. Let’s be sensible and use the existing transportation routes which are A-2 or A-4 (Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way), instead of dissecting the county.
Remember that three of these supervisors are coming up for re-election. If they fail to stop the A-3 route, then I hope that we don’t re-elect them to represent us in the future.
+ + +
Jim Cavallero is a member of the Madera Irrigation District Board of Directors.
Do both of the individuals that wrote these letters think that the words “proposed route” mean “gauranteed route”? And just because some supervisors support progress outside of agricultural development does not make them poor public officials. It is this kind of thinking that will make Madera and the Central Valley in general more self supporting and far less dependent on agriculture. I mean, why do you think the westside of the valley is hurting so much? Why do you think college graduates are eager to leave the area? There is no other major industry other than agriculture here. We do need agriculture here in the Central Valley but right now we probably need more investment in non-agricultural industries.
I agree with those who oppose the proposed California High-Speed Rail route on the west side of Madera. That route would be the most disruptive, and would take out some of Madera County’s best ag land.
I see no reason to have three sets of tracks in Madera County. The next-worst route would be through downtown Madera. Occasional drunks are hit by 35-mph trains in town. They would be picking up pieces of a person for miles if that person were hit by a high-speed train; and I doubt they will be slowing down as that would defeat the purpose of high speed.
The best route is the Santa Fe tracks right-of-way east of Madera. I believe that would be the least disruptive. I would think Amtrak would be discontinued and I don’t know if they intend to use the same track bed or build a new one, but it seems obvious to me that would be the best route if they are intent on having high-speed rail service.
Of course, high-speed rail service will benefit Maderans very little, if any, as we still have to go to Fresno or Merced to use it.
Frank Bradford,
Madera