Viewpoints » Editorials

Subscribe

Entities should sit down together

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 1 Comment
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • By the Advocate Editorial Board
  • Originally published October 30, 2009 at 9:30 p.m., updated November 1, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.

The San Antonio River Authority, Union Pacific Railroad and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority should work together to solve the logjam problem that was brought to light after a jam occurred at the railroad bridge near U.S. Highway 77 at the Victoria-Refugio county line.

We hope they can coordinate working together and achieve accountability.

Echoing our wish was John Chisholm of the SARA. "I'm hoping Union Pacific is working for a solution that will make everybody happy," he said.

Chisholm said UP created the problem when they replaced its clear-span bridge (no structure in the river) with one that sits on piers.

"I wish they wouldn't have put the piers in the river," Chisholm said.

Logjams can caused flooding and change the course of a river, which results in property owners either losing or gaining property. Such changes also can harm habitat of animals close to the river. Logjams also hinder any kind of boating or fishing.

"We haven't heard from Union Pacific," said Bill West Jr., general manager of the GBRA.

West explained that when the initial logjam occurred at the railroad bridge, the three entities - GBRA, SARA and Union Pacific - agreed to meet to figure out how to resolve the problem. But when West arrived, Union Pacific had removed a few of the logs and the rest floated downriver.

Chisholm said SARA and Union Pacific have an easement agreement, and wording that agreement is open to interpretation and that is where the disagreement lies.

"The easement we have with them includes Union Pacific agreeing to 'remove logjams.'" Chisholm said. But the definition of removing logjams is different.

Chisholm said SARA and GBRA define removal of logjams as taking the logs out of the river and disposing them. He said UP apparently defines removing logjams as breaking them up and letting them float downstream.

"What they've told us is that they will install debris deflecting devices on the bridge piers. They said they would install them as soon as they could. If it works, I suppose we would be back to pre-pier conditions."

Raquel Espinoza-Williams, corporate relations and media director for Union Pacific, said her company is reaching out to help solve the problem. She said Union Pacific is helping a property owner with a bridge downriver with the cost of removal of logs.

But she said several logjams also are upriver, and those weren't caused by the railroad bridge.

She explained that the long drought the area endured resulted in numerous logs falling in the river and floating down, so the situation is a problem for everybody.

"We have every intention of cooperating. We're all having to deal with it," she said.

"The best thing we can do is sit down and work together," she added.

We agree, all three entities should meet and communicate. Ninety percent of the time, when this is done, resolution is found.

This editorial reflects the views of the Victoria Advocate's editorial board.


Sign Up
CLOSE

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • 1 Comment
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •

Comments

  • Observer Observer Report a ViolationReport a Violation Permalink

    John Chisolm of SARA sounds like a typical nanny-state ninny. If the railroad (with its deep pockets) had NOT built a bridge with piers in the river, is he arguing that NO logjam would have occurred anywhere downriver from the railroad bridge? If so, I would like to hear his rationale. If not, why is the railroad responsible for REMOVING the logs from the river, rather than just breaking up the logjam before it affects the course of the river?

    October 31, 2009 at 1:26 p.m.