Translate

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Which Crossing is Okay?


We need a bridge!
            It’s time for another guessing game here on Save Briggs Road! Which of the river crossings shown below have escaped condemnation by the powers that be?

            All but one of the photographs below were taken in Soledad Canyon, not far from the location of our desired crossing.

      1. It is not unusual for a culvert-based crossing to wash out during a period of heavy rain. This photograph depicts the remains of such a crossing. Prior to the washout, what was the status of this crossing?



      2.  This bridge enjoys a bit of notoriety for its novel construction. It features the traditional culverts, with a garnish of railroad ties marinated in creosote. The crossing has gone the way of all such structures after a heavy storm, with the culverts slipping and rolling downriver, and the railroad ties steeping in the wet sand.


      3.  Is there such a thing as over-building a crossing?



4.  Here vehicles cross over the frothy flood via a railroad car bed. Note the safety railing at the sides.


5.  This picture was taken during construction of a culvert bridge, four days after its predecessor was wiped out. (We've been waiting almost ten years for the privilege.)



6.  Is it more environmentally sound to anchor the culverts in concrete, or is it better to allow the swollen river to push aside all obstructions? We know of a case where the river undermined a concrete barrier and left it buried forever at the river bottom.


Another View


Now for the scoring. If you judged only one of these bridges to be allowed to stand until the next flood, you get only one point, for not understanding how things work in Soledad Canyon.

In fact, however many of the bridges you judged to escape censure by the authorities, that is your score. Yes, the perfect score on our quiz is six. Not one of the photographs presented here represents a forbidden crossing.

What, then, constitutes a forbidden crossing? A crossing to be used by the residents of the Briggs Road Community is, by some strange definition, in violation of the edict set by the people-in-charge. We are not aware of any other type of crossing to run afoul of the authorities.

You may have noticed that I did not divulge the location of any of these bridges. That is because it is not our wish to have any of them or their descendants condemned. The point is this: What’s the Big Deal? If every one of these bridges is allowed to stand until Mother Nature takes it out, what is so special about a crossing accommodating the Briggs Road Community? Over the years we have cooperated in the creation of several such crossings, none worse than the worst on display here.

One last thought: Allowing the Briggs Road Community to cross the Santa Clara River benefits every single party involved in this struggle, be it a governmental agency or private interest—assuming that each is being honest about its intentions. I am not at liberty to spell out each of those benefits, but certainly there is no harm in suggesting what a bundle of good will and good press would settle on the shoulders of every involved member of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich’s staff. 

It should be all right to point out that re-opening the much shorter access to Soledad Canyon Road takes our traffic off of the many more miles that run directly through Conservancy holdings. 

And surely there is no need to mention the importance of having a secure and reasonable access route for Briggs Road residents. That's only right.



9 comments:

  1. Bridge #6 looks like a good bridge for Briggs Road

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see the railroad ties in the 2nd bridge and can't believe it. Do these people have rocks in their heads or just no common sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether you are referring to the builders of that bridge or to the powers that approved it (or neglected to condemn it), we of Briggs Road possess a quality even more significant than ecological and mechanical intelligence. WE CARE about this little river and the rest of our environs.

      That is one of the facts that makes this entire debacle so tragically unjust. Under color of ecological authority the "people in charge" are taking control of this fragile region out of the hands of the residents who have protected and nurtured it for decades, and putting it under the control of distant and indifferent agencies.

      So sadly reminiscent of other historical injustices.

      Delete
  3. I'm going with rocks in their head. I don't think the Agencies know of the rail ties in the creek. If so all hell would break loose. Take this to the bank!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that is correct, and I suspect it is, then I worry about breaking the news to them. Hell breaking loose may not lead to a crossing for us.

      However, I can think of a dozen creative ways to resolve this and make everyone happy. Let's hope that the appropriate officials are at least a tenth as creative as I am!

      They should know, at least, that if we are allowed to build our crossings, there will be no creosote used in their construction.

      Delete
  4. I recommend you contact the Newhall Land & Farming Company. They just received permission to alter the river a local river.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for that suggestion! Let's hope that our petition is regarded as favorably as that of a large landowner. At least we can appeal on the basis of precedence.

      Delete
  5. Don't go with rocks in there head although no one would believe that rail road ties in the river would fly it did . the county of Los Angeles, Ca. Fish and Wildlife, US fish and wildlife all got photos of the crossing at the time the crossing was put in the and a letter telling what and who they did not care. They are going after the home owners on Briggs Road and will do anything to damage the homers owners and turn a blind eye for everyone else .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting to hear that the authorities were notified. Why do you suppose there was no response, if that is the case? Too busy with more important matters, perhaps? Maybe they just don't like tattletales? I am trying not to believe they have it in for us and that this is all some kind of weird circumstance, but you are not making it very easy.

      What keeps coming back for me, concerning outfits like the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, is the question, "What's in if for them?" If they are targeting a little neighborhood based on their mission, then ignoring their mission at the same time, what's in it for them? There just can't be enough in it for every person who works in Fish and Wildlife to allow his or her conscience to be compromised like this.

      It would not take many people of conscience to finally stand up and assert their ethics to turn this tide, even if it is just about bureaucratic inertia. That is why we are so grateful to all of you for publicizing our issues and our blog!

      Delete