Passenger Trains > Farmers Fret Over Bullet Trains' Route - Central Valley

Farmers fret over bullet train’s route
by Christine Souza

MERCED
April 14, 2010 12:01am
• Fear it could impact Central Valley farmland
• ‘The … route that goes through the town of Le Grand affects a tomato and bell pepper packing facility’

Depending on where they're located in the central San Joaquin Valley, farmers say they're pleased or concerned by a recent decision from the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The authority ruled out one of three alignments for the Merced-to-Fresno section of the proposed high-speed rail project last week, but moved forward on another that would threaten farmland.

After many months of local work and several trips to Sacramento to meet with rail authority officials, the Madera County Farm Bureau earned a victory for its members after the authority board unanimously agreed not to bring forward proposed Alignment 3, or A-3. This route would have diagonally bisected hundreds of properties through western Madera County, making it difficult to cross from one side of a property to the other and raising questions about the feasibility of farming next to a 250-mph train.

"In this case, the Farm Bureau was able to make our point clear that if the authority would have chosen the A-3 option, it would have been a complete disaster for agriculture in Madera County," says Al Sheeter of Mordecai Ranch, whose Madera ranch has been in his family since 1868. "We tried to impress upon the authority that they would be cutting diagonals across some small farms that would basically make the remainders on each side unfarmable."

Mr. Sheeter describes himself as "very, very happy that A-3 has been taken off of the table. It has been quite a struggle."

Mr. Sheeter, a partner in an operation that grows almonds and walnuts, says his property is one of the larger contiguous pieces of farmland in western Madera County. "If the A-3 route was chosen, it would have been very difficult for us to farm part of the ranch," Mr. Sheeter says. "They were talking about underpasses and overpasses every two to three miles, and to take a piece of farm equipment two or three miles down the road and then come all of the way back is just unrealistic."

The authority reported that more than 700 acres of farmland in Madera County would have been taken out of production by the A-3 route. Madera County Farm Bureau Executive Director Julia Berry stressed the importance of seeing the A-3 route eliminated.

"In my opinion, this is one of the biggest threats to our industry we've seen in my six-year tenure in this county. We stepped up for our members, because this is what Farm Bureau is really about. If we don't defend our farmers, then who will?" she says. While Ms. Berry expressed relief about eliminating route A-3, she made it clear that her county continues to support route A-2, which follows the existing transportation corridor of Highway 99 and the Union Pacific Railroad.

"Our Farm Bureau is strongly in support of A-2; that is the line we want the most," Ms. Berry says. "The staff at the High-Speed Rail Authority from the beginning has preferred A-2 in their staff reports, so we are continuing to support them in that effort. We are joined in support by our neighboring Farm Bureau in Merced, and it has been a great example of teamwork at the local level."

Continued support from their neighboring county Farm Bureau comes at an important time for the Merced County Farm Bureau, which now finds its farmers back in the path of the proposed A-1 route, which was resurrected by the authority about three weeks ago. The A-1 route, which runs along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway line east of Highway 99, would impact agriculture in eastern Merced County, near the communities of Planada and Le Grand. Merced County Farm Bureau Executive Director Amanda Carvajal says she has worked with the Merced County agricultural commissioner's office to analyze how A-1 would affect farmers and ranchers.

"We compiled a list of all parcels from the Merced County border going north into the city of Merced, the southern part of route A-1. Of those parcels, 42 percent are in permanent crops, such as fruit and nut crops, grapes and alfalfa," Ms. Carvajal says. "This is some of the best ag land in our county and we haven't even taken into account the northern part of the route."

Ms. Carvajal points out that the language in the high-speed rail project bond passed by voters in November 2008 states that, "the High-Speed Rail shall only exist in a manner that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural environment." "Of all four routes, A-3 and A-1 have the greatest impacts on the natural environment, including agriculture," she says.

Merced County Farm Bureau President Jeff Marchini says that his county Farm Bureau is "adamantly opposed to A-1 because of the footprint that it is going to leave on agriculture. The A-1 route that goes through the town of Le Grand affects a tomato and bell pepper packing facility and numerous permanent crops along the route," he says. Now that routes A-1 and A-2 have been selected for further review, the authority will conduct in-depth studies to determine cumulative impacts and evaluate which is the best, most cost-effective route with the fewest impacts.

Chris Scheuring, managing counsel of the California Farm Bureau Federation Natural Resources and Environmental Division, says the Farm Bureau will be looking to the High-Speed Rail Authority to avoid or mitigate all impacts to agricultural resources in making its alignment and infrastructure decisions.

"The California Farm Bureau Federation generally supports this project. However, it's a project that primarily benefits urban travelers while having primarily rural impacts," Mr. Scheuring says. "To that extent, we support our local Farm Bureaus in deciding which of the proposed alignments are least intrusive and damaging to prime agricultural lands, given the importance of prime farmland to the state of California."

California voters approved the high-speed rail project in 2008 with the passage of Proposition 1A, which authorized $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund the first phase of a planned multiphase high-speed rail network.

With the project costing an estimated $42.6 billion, the High-Speed Rail Authority -- assigned the task of completing final planning, design and environmental efforts -- has applied for $4.7 billion in federal stimulus dollars. To be eligible, the authority must be ready to begin construction by 2012. The project would be funded through public and private money, including federal and state funds and bonds. Construction efforts are projected to begin as soon as next year.

An estimated 300 miles of the project is expected to go through the Central Valley, one of the most productive farming regions in the world.
(About the writer: Christine Souza is an assistant editor of AgAlert, a publication of the California Farm Bureau Federation

Seems to be a round of take-backs going on:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14884996?source=most_viewed

Effort under way to repeal high-speed rail bond measure

By Mike Rosenberg
San Mateo County Times
Posted: 04/14/2010 06:15:16 PM PDT
Updated: 04/14/2010 11:09:34 PM PDT

Officials in five cities will consider whether to throw their weight behind an effort to ask California voters to repeal the bond measure that launched the high-speed rail project.

Such an endeavor would be difficult and time-consuming, and local officials and residents should instead strive to make sure the project is done right, rather than not at all, said Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, who heads the group that will consider the idea.

Cline agreed to place the item on the agenda for the Friday meeting of the Peninsula Cities Consortium, which also includes the mayors of Burlingame, Belmont and Palo Alto, and an Atherton councilman. The cities formed the consortium one year ago to unify their high-speed-rail concerns.

Cline said he has noticed a small increase in the number of local residents who want to try to repeal Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion high-speed-train bond approved in November 2008 with 52.7 percent of the vote. He received a letter from Menlo Park resident Morris Brown asking for the consortium to discuss whether to form a subcommittee that would consider trying to change or repeal Proposition 1A.

"There's more people whispering about it," Cline said. "There's a growing group of people who feel they're not alone in their concern."

But he noted that in the year since the consortium was formed, none of the city leaders on the panel have asked the group to consider repealing Proposition 1A. Personally, although
Advertisement
he is willing to allow his colleagues on the consortium to discuss the idea, Cline does not see the value in trying to nullify the bond.

"We have to continue to look at how to form this thing when it comes rather than look at ways to undermine it," said Cline, who was an opponent of Proposition 1A. "That's always been my position; I am respectful of elections."

It would be an uphill battle for a Proposition 1A appeal to reach the ballot.

It is too late to gather signatures for the measure to make the November election, and even an overwhelming Peninsula movement would require significant aid from across the state to gather enough signatures to make the next election, in 2012. Backers of a measure that would overturn a prior approved measure currently must get nearly 700,000 registered voters to sign their petition to make the ballot.

Brown, though, said he has been getting many e-mails since he broached the idea.

"We feel there's a lot of people upset with the way the project is going along," said Brown, who figured a signature-gathering campaign would cost $1 million. "I don't know how you start something like this. The idea is to at least take a look at it and see how much grass-roots support you could get for it. But it is daunting, to say the least."

It appears unlikely that the Legislature, which put Proposition 1A on the ballot, would ask residents to revote on a measure they already approved.

There is a bill in the Assembly, however, that, if approved, would essentially strip the high-speed train project of its Proposition 1A funding. AB 2121, by Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-San Juan Capistrano, is scheduled for its first hearing in the committee on transportation Monday.

Contact Mike Rosenberg at 650-348-4324.

Why worry? Farming water is going to protect the gourmet prized delta smelt so that makes SanJ farming mute.

BobP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why worry? Farming water is going to protect the
> gourmet prized delta smelt so that makes SanJ
> farming mute.

Which is disgusting. "America's Salad Bowl" is now a huge, vast open area of dry dirt. It makes me want to cry. Political correctness and eco-terror has gone too far.

Give me a break! nearin' 2.5 years and that's all this has been, PIPE DREAM!

I support the farmers in trying to reduce the impact of pulling permanent crop land out of service, but if the best argument they got is something as ridiculous as "...raising questions of the feasibility of farming next to a 250-mph train" I dunno what to say. Sounds like they got some city-slicker in their Farm Bureau Public Affairs Office, not a common-sense farmer type.

Our farmers have really had it bad for the last two years, given the drought. I am actually amazed that the HSRA was considering eminent domain against them. Their concerns are well founded. Whatever happened to paralleling the UP or BNSF routes?

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Officials in five cities will consider whether to
> throw their weight behind an effort to ask
> California voters to repeal the bond measure that
> launched the high-speed rail project.

> Such an endeavor would be difficult and
> time-consuming, and local officials and residents
> should instead strive to make sure the project is
> done right, rather than not at all, said Menlo
> Park Mayor Rich Cline, who heads the group that
> will consider the idea.

> Cline agreed to place the item on the agenda for
> the Friday meeting of the Peninsula Cities
> Consortium, which also includes the mayors of
> Burlingame, Belmont and Palo Alto, and an Atherton
> councilman. The cities formed the consortium one
> year ago to unify their high-speed-rail concerns.

Ahh... Menlo Park, Burlingame, Belmont, Palo Alto, and Atherton... I'm not surprised. I have a different view of these people, who actually can pay for a tunnel if they wanted to.

raillady Wrote:
> Ms. Carvajal points out that the language in the
> high-speed rail project bond passed by voters in
> November 2008 states that, "the High-Speed Rail
> shall only exist in a manner that minimizes urban
> sprawl and impacts on the natural environment."
> "Of all four routes, A-3 and A-1 have the greatest
> impacts on the natural environment, including
> agriculture," she says.

Not that I disagree with the thought of preserving as much useful farmland as possible, but... Agriculture is not exactly the "natural environment". Irrigating deserts, etc is quite useful but in no way natural.

I agree with the other poster that while the cause may be noble, it seems that some of those arguing it are full of it. "Farming next to 250mph trains" indeed!

Jamie

They manage to farm and raise cattle in Europe next to high speed rail lines. What a crock.

I think it is obvious that staying close to existing rail rights of way makes the most sense. However, even that option is coming under fire from some farm interests. Let's be clear, farming in the central valley of California is on the receiving end of some of the largest chunks of corporate welfare doled out by the feds. Their trade associations have done a good job of blaming environmentalists and politicians for their troubles (and those two groups do share in the problems), but corporate farming interests are not blameless for the troubles they have in the central valley. Building enormous farms in the desert, sucking the underground dry, then, along with the big cities, sucking the fresh water from the delta is bound to cause a problem. The westside farmers are now admitting that they are probably facing huge problems with high salinity from imported delta water that may put them out of business anyway. Another fine example of no particular policy ever being formulated. Just run it dry.

NormSchultze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They manage to farm and raise cattle in Europe
> next to high speed rail lines. What a crock.


LGV Mediterranee, the third segment of the Paris-Marseilles high-speed line, goes through a very prestigious wine producing region. No impact has been found....

ChS7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NormSchultze Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They manage to farm and raise cattle in Europe
> > next to high speed rail lines. What a crock.
>
>
> LGV Mediterranee, the third segment of the
> Paris-Marseilles high-speed line, goes through a
> very prestigious wine producing region. No
> impact has been found....

That's correct.

But, it did take several years of negotiations to get the alignment which was best for growers and the railroad.

The language of the CA enabling act is troublesome, to say the least. If the authorization does specify "minimum impact on agriculture" that could be a very difficult hurdle if the farmers resist. If the farmers are able to show that the alignment parallel to the UP / BNSF has less impact on farmers, that would negate HSR's ability to seize land which has a greater impact on farmers.

Jes' saying...

(Most laws are sloppy pieces of work, crafted to get various interests on board. They often contain contradictory provisions, and are meaningless until somebody writes the actual enforcing regulations. Which an aggrieved party takes the regulation to court, pointing out the contradiction. Throwing it back on the judge to sort out the mess.)