Image of Supervisor Jimmy Paulding standing with Senator Laird. They are outside looking at road damage. In the foreground are two other people and beyond them is bushes. There is an orange cone

Cecchetti Road Crossing Project – Frequently Asked Questions (October 2025)

Author: Board of Supervisors
Date: 10/9/2025 10:15 AM

Contextual Introduction: A Broader Problem with Environmental Overreach

Rebuilding the Cecchetti Road crossing is complicated and unfortunately, it is not as simple as putting culverts back into the creek and pouring some concrete. And because the Federally protected steelhead trout use Arroyo Grande Creek, the County must comply with additional environmental analysis to ensure that the road crossing does not constitute an impediment to the fish to migrate upstream. While the goal of environmental protection is admirable, implementation of these laws must be done in an efficient manner, in order to reduce community impacts.

At the same time, SLO County is currently experiencing an extreme version of misplaced environmentalism with the litigation regarding Lopez Dam, where environmental groups are using their lawsuit and courts to hijack the process that the County has been in for decades with the regulatory agencies. The lawsuit ignores the County’s years of good-faith work to balance species protection with essential water supply reliability for South County communities.

As one County Supervisor among five, I do not have the authority to unilaterally direct departments like Public Works or to override state or federal regulations—no matter how unfair, burdensome, or disconnected from reality they may be. I have and will continue to advocate for reasonable, science-based, and community-focused approaches. But it's clear that change is needed at the legislative and regulatory level to restore balance between environmental goals and public infrastructure and safety.

For more background on the Lopez Lake issue and its implications for water security, you can read my editorial “Scorched earth tactics: Environmental groups are threatening South County’s water security" (December 12, 2024)

Cecchetti Road Crossing Project – FAQ

1. What happened to the Cecchetti Road crossing?

In January 2023, extreme storms washed out the culverted crossing at Arroyo Grande Creek on Cecchetti Road. The road has remained closed ever since, cutting off a key route for residents, emergency responders, and agricultural operations.
2. How bad was the storm damage in 2023?

The January 2023 storms were severe across SLO County, resulting in widespread damage to roads and bridges. Cecchetti was one of four bridges or large culverts that were closed and required replacement. In this case, the original crossing—comprised of concrete and corrugated metal pipe (CMP)—was completely destroyed by the floodwaters.
 
3. What actions were taken after the road washed out?

Here’s a timeline of key actions from the road loss in January 2023 through mid-2024:
  • Early 2023: Public Works prioritized locations where residents were stranded. That did not include Cecchetti sincere there were two alternative routes still available. 
  • Emergency window: Attempted to complete a temporary repair, but were unable to due to site conditions.
  • Post-emergency: Removed site debris and began pursuing a permanent solution.
  • Mid-to-late 2023: Hired a design firm and began environmental permitting.
  • 2023 and 2024: Applied twice for a streamlining grant to accelerate environmental permitting (unsuccessful the first time and then discovered that Public Works staff had already advanced the project beyond the expected streamlining afforded by the grant the second time).
  • Throughout: Worked closely with Senator John Laird’s office to strengthen grant support.
  • May-June 2024: I advocated for a temporary bridge to restore access in the interim.
4. Why couldn’t you simply replace the original low water crossing?

The previous design—a low water crossing using concrete and corrugated metal pipes (CMP)—is no longer permitted due to environmental regulations. The site is designated as a steelhead trout fish passage, and the original structure posed a barrier to fish migration.
 
5. Which agencies are involved in the environmental permitting, and why is it so complex?

Multiple state and federal agencies are responsible for reviewing and permitting the project due to its environmental sensitivity:
  • Federal:
    • NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)
    • USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 
    • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • State:
    • CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife)
    • Regional Water Quality Control Board
These agencies enforce environmental protections, particularly under the Endangered Species Act, due to the presence of threatened Steelhead Trout.
6. What is the current status of the permanent bridge?
  • The project is in the design and permitting phase, currently at about 50% design completion.
  • The new design calls for a full permanent bridge (rather than a culvert or low water crossing) to meet modern environmental and hydraulic standards, reduce risk of future damage and maintain access during winter.
  • Estimated construction start (Notice to Proceed): Spring 2027
  • Estimated completion: Fall 2027 (assuming project stays on track) 
7. Is the permanent bridge fully funded?

Not yet:
  • The County has applied to FEMA and been approved for 75% of the project costs, with an additional 18% from CA, for a total of 93%.
  • The local match will be covered by storm recovery funds.
  • However, there remains uncertainty with FEMA funding timelines and approvals.
  • Again, the driver at this point is not the cost but is the design, environmental permitting process with the federal and state regulators, and bidding requirements.

8. What was the temporary bridge proposal? 

Because the permanent solution is still years away, the Board of Supervisors at my request and advocacy allocated $250,000 in June 2025 for a temporary one-lane bridge to restore access until the permanent bridge is built. This decision came after community advocacy and recognition that residents have been without direct access for over 2.5 years. 

After this funding was secured, Public Works requested bids for the temporary bridge project that consisted of: 

  • A temporary one-lane bridge that would span the washed-out section of Cecchetti Road.
  • The bridge would need to be removed during high creek flows in winter to avoid damage.
  • The base bid for construction was $475,998 (higher than originally budgeted due to inflation and market conditions) with installation expected in Spring 2026 following the rainy season. 

9. Why wasn’t a temporary bridge pursued sooner?

  • In 2024, staff were optimistic that the streamlining grant would reduce permitting time for the permanent bridge to allow for construction in 2026, making a temporary bridge an unwise investment of local, non-federally reimbursable funds.
  • The granting agency informed the County that the second grant application would not accelerate, the timeline for permanent construction in 2027, prompting renewed advocacy for the temporary bridge. It is important to note that the design process for the permanent bridge has continued to progress concurrently.
  • The Board approved funding for a temporary bridge in June 2025, and bids were advertised in August 2025.

10. Why isn’t the temporary bridge moving forward? 

After securing $250,000 for a temporary bridge during budget hearings in June, the lowest bid for the project came in more than twice that cost. In order to fund the balance, the Board of Supervisors was asked to approve a budget adjustment which requires a 4/5ths vote. 

On October 7, 2025, residents of the Huasna/East AG community, local Ag operators, the SLO County Farm Bureau, the Growers-Shippers Association, and the South County Chambers of Commerce either spoke or submitted written comments in support of funding the temporary bridge project. 

While Supervisors Dawn Ortiz-Legg and Bruce Gibson joined me in supporting the project, two North County Supervisors, Heather Moreno and John Peschong, voted against it. Without a fourth vote, the project did not receive the funding necessary to move forward. 

They argued the project was fiscally unwise. But that claim simply doesn’t hold up to the facts:

FEMA Funding Is Not Guaranteed
Although the permanent bridge replacement is expected to be up to 75% reimbursed by FEMA, federal uncertainty makes that far from a sure thing. The current administration has publicly called for the elimination of FEMA, raising real questions about whether that funding will materialize. Delaying action in the hope of future reimbursement is a gamble our community should not be forced to take.

Weather Concerns Have Been Overstated
One supervisor claimed we could be forced to remove the temporary bridge if another extreme storm hits, implying that’s a likely outcome. But the truth is that 2023’s storm was a 50-to-100-year event, and the temporary bridge design accounts for more typical weather conditions. Suggesting otherwise misleads the public and exaggerates the risk.

The County Has the Funding—Right Now
There is no financial excuse to delay this project. I reviewed our FY 2025–26 Final Budget, approved by the Board on September 23, 2025, and identified at least three sources of available funding that could be tapped to cover the cost:

  • Capital Projects Fund (FC 230): $304,313 available, due to over-realized interest revenue
  • Road Impact Fees (FC 248): $2,080,510 available, from increased fees and interest revenue
  • Road Fund (FC 245): $2,490,789 available, from disaster loan reimbursements and over-realized SB 1 funds

Together, these funds show that the County is not short on money for vital infrastructure—it’s short on political will. All of these sources are directly related to infrastructure and transportation and could legally and responsibly support a temporary bridge.

Despite this setback, I remain committed to pushing forward.
✅ After unsuccessfully securing funding for a temporary bridge in 2024, I successfully secured $250,000 in this year’s County budget
✅ I have advocated at every level of government on the issue
✅ I secured a 3–2 majority twice—but we fell one vote short due to a procedural rule

Let’s be clear: this is not a case of government inaction. It’s a case of reasonable solutions being blocked despite clear public need, available funding, and community support.

I will continue doing everything in my power to restore access at Cecchetti Road—and I appreciate everyone who’s spoken up, written in, or attended meetings to support this critical project.

11. Why is the permanent replacement project taking so long?

A combination of factors:

  • Regulatory complexity: Environmental permitting due to endangered species concerns has added significant time.
  • Unsuccessful grant applications: Unsuccessful  attempts at streamlining the permit process delayed progress.
  • Funding uncertainty: The project depends on FEMA and other matching funds.
  • Resource limitations: The County is managing multiple bridge failures and other storm damage projects and must balance limited staff and funds across projects.
  • Project complexity: Building a new bridge is a complicated effort that takes significant planning and time. The County Public Works Department aims to replace one bridge a year under normal circumstances.  In 2024, two bridges were constructed, in 2025 one bridge was replaced, in 2026 three bridges (two storm damage-related) are being replaced, and in 2027 we are on track to again have three bridge projects under construction. That’s 9 bridges in four years. Typically bridge project development and construction averages 5-8 years. 

12. What is being done to prevent delays on other bridge projects?

The Board and Public Works are working to:

  • Prioritize funding for bridges based on safety and public access.
  • Leverage federal funds where possible (FEMA and Federal Highway Bridge Program).
  • Balance bridge replacement needs with local road maintenance budgets, including interim loans or delaying other projects.

13. What is the broader context of this project in the County?

The County is managing a backlog of aging infrastructure, worsened by the 2023 storm damage. Cecchetti is one of several emergency rebuilds, and while funding from FEMA and federal bridge programs helps, local match requirements and rising construction costs are stretching budgets thin.