California Wastes $114 Million on a Wildlife Crossing That Leads Nowhere – Meet the Genius Who Led

[American Girl]

Excerpt:
You know that perfect example of California incompetence when Gavin Newsom blows $114 million of taxpayer money on a half-built “wildlife crossing” that literally leads nowhere — and then the activist in charge blames Trump for the disaster? That’s exactly what’s happening with this boondoggle bridge supposedly meant for cougars and butterflies.

The unfinished structure — already $114 million deep in the hole — sits there as a monument to woke stupidity. No animals are crossing it because it’s not even connected to anything useful. Just another California “green” project that went off the rails while the state crumbles under debt, crime, and failing infrastructure.




Her outfit screams "competence"


https://www.usasupreme.com/california-wastes-114-million-on-a-wildlife-crossing-that-leads-nowhere-meet-the-genius-who-led-this-mess-video/

[mountaineer]

Beth Pratt, leading Newsom’s $114M wildlife bridge project, faces criticism over rising costs and delays while blaming Trump, despite having no listed construction experience.

https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/2034637916748849366

https://twitter.com/christopherrufo/status/2034295897597829460

[DefiantMassRINO]

It's a state project.  Trump is not Governor of California.  Eat caca.

[catfish1957]

[PeteS in CA]

It's a state project.  Trump is not Governor of California.  Eat caca.

Further, Goobernor Noisome was at the opening of construction in 2022. Trump did not become President (again) until January 2025. It's a state project, and Trump was not President during most of its construction time. Had the project been managed well, it would have been completed shortly after Trump took office, but bureaucratic "efficiency" determined otherwise.

[Fishrrman]

Looking at the pic above of the gal in the yellow hardhat...
... is that her "service animal" she's holding?
A stuffed toy dog...?

[PeteS in CA]

Looking at the pic above of the gal in the yellow hardhat...
... is that her "service animal" she's holding?
A stuffed toy dog...?

Looks like a stuffed mountain lion.

[Hoodat]

Political Sock
@politicalsock

Yes, but of that $114M, how much was funneled back to CA democrats in the way of campaign donations and nonprofit funding?

That’s how success is judged. (On the left)

11:06 AM · Mar 18, 2026  ·  23.6K Views

https://x.com/politicalsock/status/2034300309334364294

[Smokin Joe]

THis whole debacle is reminiscent of the boondoggle over caribou and moose crossings on the Trans Alaska Pipeline.

After batteries of experts claiming that the crossings 'had' to be different, because one would not cross under the pipeline and the other would not cross over where it was buried, millions of dollars were added to the cost of the pipeline, and it turned out either critter would just cross where it could.

It makes me wonder if some of the same idiots were pulling the strings on this.

[PeteS in CA]

THis whole debacle is reminiscent of the boondoggle over caribou and moose crossings on the Trans Alaska Pipeline.

After batteries of experts claiming that the crossings 'had' to be different, because one would not cross under the pipeline and the other would not cross over where it was buried, millions of dollars were added to the cost of the pipeline, and it turned out either critter would just cross where it could.

It makes me wonder if some of the same idiots were pulling the strings on this.

Enviros lied? Who'd expect that?

[roamer_1]

THis whole debacle is reminiscent of the boondoggle over caribou and moose crossings on the Trans Alaska Pipeline.

After batteries of experts claiming that the crossings 'had' to be different, because one would not cross under the pipeline and the other would not cross over where it was buried, millions of dollars were added to the cost of the pipeline, and it turned out either critter would just cross where it could.

It makes me wonder if some of the same idiots were pulling the strings on this.

I have seen this in a couple places... Kinda by Snoqualmie Pass IIRC. and another up by Banff... I would be interested to see if traffic accidents went down after their installation. They have been there long enough to show a difference.

And that is the difference, btw, wrt your example. In this case, if you can keep the wildlife off the highway, it would pay for itself in untold accidents, the cost in lives, the costs in cleanup...

But it is also a choke point that predators would learn to use, which might tend to hinder crossings.

So I dunno. I'd have to see the numbers to prove it, I guess 

[Cyber Liberty]

I have seen this in a couple places... Kinda by Snoqualmie Pass IIRC. and another up by Banff... I would be interested to see if traffic accidents went down after their installation. They have been there long enough to show a difference.

And that is the difference, btw, wrt your example. In this case, if you can keep the wildlife off the highway, it would pay for itself in untold accidents, the cost in lives, the costs in cleanup...

But it is also a choke point that predators would learn to use, which might tend to hinder crossings.

So I dunno. I'd have to see the numbers to prove it, I guess 

I'll bet you a dollar there wont be a study to prove it either way.

[roamer_1]

I'll bet you a dollar there wont be a study to prove it either way.

I don't know. 

[MeganC]

More on this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/californias-over-budget-114-million-041105384.html

Important detail: About $37 million — 32% of construction costs — comes from private donors, not taxpayers.

The purpose here is to direct wildlife to cross the road safely on this bridge as opposed to crossing the road.

See this:

Wildlife crossings work. Arizona's 20-plus corridors have cut wildlife-vehicle collisions by 90%. Crossings with fencing reduce large-mammal crashes by up to 97%. Americans hit more than a million animals on the road every year — 200 deaths, $8 billion in damage.

The cost comparison is real, too. Utah built one for $5 million. Colorado did it in a year for $15 million. Neither crossed ten lanes of urban freeway while relocating a water main and five telecom networks. Pratt says the scope isn't comparable. Critics say the scope is the problem.

[Smokin Joe]

I have seen this in a couple places... Kinda by Snoqualmie Pass IIRC. and another up by Banff... I would be interested to see if traffic accidents went down after their installation. They have been there long enough to show a difference.

And that is the difference, btw, wrt your example. In this case, if you can keep the wildlife off the highway, it would pay for itself in untold accidents, the cost in lives, the costs in cleanup...

But it is also a choke point that predators would learn to use, which might tend to hinder crossings.

So I dunno. I'd have to see the numbers to prove it, I guess 

I'm not sure how much vehicle traffic there is along the Alaska Pipeline route. Initial ideas to put the pipeline above ground were thwarted by 'wildlife experts' who said that either the Caribou or Moose (I forget which) would not cross under the line if it was elevated (yes, actually, both would), but that forced crossings where the animals could cross over the pipeline (burying it) which has problems in permafrost, and supports for the pipeline in permafrost areas were designed to prevent the pipeline from sinking in. Anyway, it complicated an already difficult task, with little benefit to the critters.

I think that places critters can cross under heavily trafficked highways are a good idea, especially along migration routes and areas heavily traveled by animals, but raising the roadbed (bridging ravines instead of filling them and installing culverts) may be the way to go.