While we at the California High-Speed Rail Authority don’t second-guess the will of the voters the way Jon Coupal seems to – instead we make it our mission to carry out the will of the voters – we actually agree with the position of the taxpayer advocate who doesn’t want a single cent of the taxpayers’ dollars wasted. We want to ensure that the $9 billion voters decided to put toward the construction of a high-speed rail system is not wasted and is used to its fullest effect. And in fact we have a plan to grow that $9 billion into the $42.6 billion needed to construct the project.

So, in that light, let us run through a number of reasons we think taxpayers would be pleased at the approach taken by the High-Speed Rail Authority.

First, investment in infrastructure is good for our economy. Without a doubt, putting money into brick-and-mortar construction creates jobs and spurs economic stimulus. In the case the of the high-speed train project, a conservative estimate shows we’d create 600,000 construction related job-years over the life of the project’s construction and 450,000 permanent jobs thereafter. The benefits of $43 billion pumped into our economy cannot be overstated.

Which brings me to the second point: it should be noted that California will put up only 25 percent of the cost of this project, but will reap 100 percent of the benefits. One hundred percent of the jobs, 100 percent of the assets, 100 percent of the environmental benefits will be in California, despite the state having put up only 25 percent of the capital. Any business person or taxpayer advocate would say this is a good deal for the state.

Third, our state needs additional modes of transportation to maintain our economy. It’s vital to our continued economic strength, and in order to keep our economy humming over the next two decades as our state’s population swells by a third to 50 million residents, we must be able to move goods and people throughout the state more efficiently than we are able to today. That means more roads, or it means more airports, or it means alternative modes of transportation. High-speed rail is the most cost-effective mode of transportation to construct and maintain, and it will carry enough people such that it will reduce the need to add lane-miles to freeways or departure gates and runways to airports.

Here’s something else that we know Jon Coupal would be laudatory of: the high-speed rail project’s business plan calls for a reliance on contractors, rather than on state public employees. Now, that makes good sense for our project, as it will move through several phases that require expertise in certain areas only for a finite period of time; it makes more sense to hire environmental planners only for the environmental planning phase rather than bringing them on as state staff and then being forced to find work for them after the environmental planning for the project is complete, for example. But it also means the state is getting a better bargain for its dollar. Contract language and risk management mechanisms ensure that taxpayers are getting what they asked for, on schedule, and for a better deal than if the state itself was managing the project.

Lastly, unlike highways or airport runways or any other mode of transportation, the high-speed rail system will pay for itself and require no government subsidy for its operation. Whether that means a ticket to ride it from San Francisco to Los Angeles will cost $50 or $150, we’ve shown that the system will produce a profit. The actual price of a ticket won’t be decided for several years (heck! we don’t even have a single shovel in the ground yet, much less a ticketing operation!) but under a number of scenarios we can see that the system will generate revenue, just as high-speed rail systems do around the world. We can’t understand why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wouldn’t be applauding that.

What’s more – and contrary to Jon Coupal’s assertion – tremendous momentum is building for high-speed rail in California. Voters last November said yes to high-speed rail, then two months later we got a president who strongly supports high-speed rail to the degree he included $8 billion for its development in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and advocated for a continuing appropriation for its construction. Congress has put its support behind high-speed rail construction. Private companies and other countries that have high-speed rail have been beating down California’s door to be part of our project – because they know it will be successful and they know it will generate revenue.

At the High-Speed Rail Authority, we’re keeping our sights focused on carrying out the will of the voters of California – and that means creating jobs and improving our state by responsibly and transparently building a desperately needed transportation alternative.

SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2009.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.
____________________________________________________________________________

Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/07 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania .

A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood ‘debris’ dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials ‘debris.’

I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is:

(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or

(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.

(Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)

I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the stream ‘restored’ to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers — but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2009? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not careful where they dump!

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU,
RYAN DEVRIES