Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause for Newtown bridge project, raise NAGPRA and property-rights concerns
Summary
Public commenters told the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on March 4 that a planned bridge replacement on Newtown Road would damage private property and a documented Native American site. Speakers requested the county revisit design alternatives including replacing the culvert rather than building a long boxed bridge.
Speakers at the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors’ March 4 meeting urged supervisors to pause a bridge replacement project on Newtown Road, saying it would take or alter residents’ private property and harm documented Native American sites.
Sue Taylor, a resident who identified herself during the meeting, told supervisors the county’s design would “destroy the last years of this woman's life” by replacing a culvert with a concrete boxed structure that would run through a property owner’s front yard. “This woman … has spent $90,000 fighting this county,” Taylor said during public comment, and asked the board to “have some mercy and change your heart and do something to change this.”
Members of the Nisenan community pressed county officials to apply federal repatriation law before construction. “I would like to request the county look into NAGPRA laws,” said Laura Galvin, who identified herself as “a member of the Nisenan community.” She asked how the county could ensure lineal descendants have input; she urged supervisors to “ask that building stop until that take place.”
Engineer and local resident Chris Payne told the board he is concerned about winter surfacing and traction on the bridge because of its location against a north-facing slope. He said the design was not “a bad design from an engineering point of view,” but urged supervisors to “think twice about it before you take any action.”
Board action kept the item on the consent calendar at the start of the meeting. A motion to adopt the agenda “with no changes” passed on a voice vote, 3–2, which left the Newtown item in the consent list rather than pulled for separate discussion.
Why this matters: Speakers argued the county’s proposed boxed-bridge design would have irreversible impacts to private property and to a documented native site. They asked the board to consider less intrusive alternatives — for example, rehabilitating the existing culvert — and to apply federal protections where human remains or cultural materials may be involved.
What county staff said in previous materials: Public documents and the project’s outreach materials show the county sought bridge funding that would require replacing the present culvert; commenters argued the same connectivity could be achieved with less intrusive fixes.
Next steps: The board did not take a separate vote on the Newtown design at the March 4 meeting beyond adopting the agenda. Commenters asked supervisors and staff to pause design or grant approvals pending tribal consultation and a review of less intrusive options.
