Buying land for California’s bullet train remains a slow and contentious process for the state’s high-speed rail agency — but the state’s top rail official said this week he doesn’t expect any “significant” project delays as a result.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority must still acquire rights to nearly 1,000 land parcels in the Central Valley for the first leg of the 800-mile rail network, expected to one day stretch from Sacramento to San Diego.

As of July, it had legal possession of just 300 of the 1,277 necessary parcels for the initial Merced-to-Bakersfield line. This 130-mile portion has been called the “backbone” of the project.

The first 29 miles of that leg is expected to be built by the end of 2017 or early 2018, rail officials said this week.

The agency would need to significantly quicken its pace to open its initial operating section, from Merced to Burbank, by the authority’s estimated 2022 time-frame.

Jeff Morales, the rail authority’s CEO, said in an interview on Wednesday that acquiring land is “a big, big focus.”

In the meantime, he said, construction crews will work at key points along land already acquired until the authority obtains the rest.

“We don’t see a significant impact” to the construction timeline, Morales said. “We built in contingencies.”

Still, Morales said, the authority will issue a revised construction timeline for the first 29 miles this fall. He said that revision should better match up construction work with land recently acquired, but added that he does not expect it will push back the initial project’s end-date.

First stretch under construction

Heavy construction started in Madera in June to build the first of 16 concrete footings for an elevated rail bridge over the Fresno River. That work is part of the Central Valley’s first 29-mile stretch, from Madera to Fresno counties. But even for this earliest of projects, the state has just 223 of 543 parcels needed for construction, which is expected to be complete in 2017.

Landowners have alleged the authority’s property agents are using pressure tactics to speed up the process. They’ve also said they’ve received low-ball offers.

Rail authority officials said this week they’re committed to improving the process and making fair offers. Morales said the authority plans to train and retrain its right-of-way consultants, streamline its internal processes and add more staff.

The state’s pace of acquiring land has picked up in recent months. In March, for example, it had legal possession of just 139 parcels.

“We’re seeing an uptick,” Morales told an authority finance committee on Tuesday in Sacramento. “We do expect, based on specific changes we’ve made, the pace to pick up over the next few months.”

The state has also sped up its use of eminent domain.

In July, it listed 159 parcels under “parcel to condemn,” or to take following a fair market offer. That’s up from 33 under the same listing in March.

Use of eminent domain

In an interview after Tuesday’s board meeting, Dan Richard, chairman of the rail authority’s board, said the agency wants to avoid eminent domain as much as possible. That’s because the associated legal process can take longer than negotiating directly with a landowner, Richard said.

In 2008, California voters authorized nearly $10 billion in bonds for the bullet train project by approving Proposition 1A. The ballot measure said the network would link the state’s urban centers from Sacramento to San Diego, with the San Francisco to Los Angeles connection serving as the central line. Cost estimates for that central line have ranged as high as $96 billion, but were revised downward in recent years to $68 billion.

At the authority’s finance committee meeting, board members urged rail authority staff to find ways to improve and speed up land acquisition. But given the complexities of the project, they said they remained realistic about how quickly the authority could move.

“Major government infrastructure projects all have issues. What we’re trying to do is stay ahead of the issues and correct the issues,” said Tom Richards, the board’s vice chairman and a Fresno resident.

“I don’t think anyone thought this was going to be easy, so I guess we’re all right,” added Mike Rossi, also a board member.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

The results are the first since state-ordered water cuts went into effect June 1. They exceeded the 25 percent conservation target mandated by Gov. Jerry Brown in April.

“Californians understand the severity of the drought and they are taking action, as shown by the numbers released today,” Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said in a news release. “We didn’t know if the positive showing in May was due in part to cooler temperatures. This report shows that residents knew they had to keep conserving even during the summer heat and they kept the sprinklers off more than they would in a normal year. That’s the right attitude as we head into August and September heat — in the drought of the century with no certain end date.”

The state required cities and towns to slash water use between 8 percent and 36 percent starting June 1, after voluntary measures came up short. It was the first mandated water cutback in California’s history.

Even before the state released its figures, water agencies from San Francisco to San Diego said they met or exceeded their June savings targets.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, California’s largest agency serving 4 million people, said it met its 16 percent savings goal.

San Diegans cut water use by about 26 percent in June, following a 30 percent drop in May, which was aided by cool and wet weather, the region’s water authority reported.

The San Jose Water Co. said its customers cut consumption by 35 percent in June, compared to the 20 percent goal.

State regulators put the water cuts in place after Gov. Jerry Brown ordered a 25 percent statewide water reduction mandate in April.

Districts with the highest per capita water use received the steepest reduction orders.

June’s water reductions follow a 28.9 percent drop in May. Californians reduced water in April by only 14 percent and 3.6 percent in March, leading up to the mandatory cuts.

Water districts that don’t meet the state mandates face the prospect of $10,000 per day fines, though the state panel has emphasized its goal is conservation, not fines. Districts could also face additional limits on how many days a week residents can water lawns.

To the frustration of some city dwellers, conservation orders do not apply to the state’s agriculture industry or environmental water use. Both sectors use far more water than urban areas, though each has experienced severe cutbacks.

State officials stressed that Californians must keep saving water.

“We’re not just in a drought. We’re in the drought of our lives,” said Felicia Marcus, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. “That’s why we are taking it seriously.”

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A strong majority of Californians say they support tougher limits on greenhouse gas emissions and more ambitious renewable energy goals to combat climate change, according to a statewide poll released late Wednesday.

Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said global warming is contributing to California’s ongoing drought. About half said global warming is a “very serious” threat to the state’s future, according to the poll, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a San Francisco-based nonpartisan research center.

“At a time when many Californians are making a connection between the current drought and climate change, there is strong support for expanding the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s president, in a news release.

Results of the survey — titled Californians & the environment — are based on phone interviews with 1,702 California adult residents from in July.

Of those who took part, 44 percent said they were registered Democrats; 28 percent were Republicans; and 24 percent independents or decline-to-state voters, according to the institute.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said they believe there’s a connection between the drought and global warming, while 28 percent said they saw no link.

Spray irrigation on a field in the Imperial Valley in southern California. This type of irrigation is more efficient than flood irrigation that is popular in this region. Still, in the high temperatures of this desert region a lot of the water evaporates, leaving the salts, that are dissolved in the Colorado River water that is used, on the soil.

The institute has not asked that question in the past, said PPIC spokeswoman Linda Strean.

California is mired in its fourth straight year of severe drought. While not going so far as to say climate change has caused the drought, recent scientific studies have said global warming exacerbates the extreme high pressure systems that block rainfall in the Western United States.

PPIC’s past surveys have found strong support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including majorities across party lines a decade ago who favored California’s landmark emissions reduction law, AB32. That law requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

It was signed into law in 2006 by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“A strong partisan divide has opened up since then,” the institute observed in its release.

Now, 79 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents favor the law compared with 46 percent of Republicans, the institute said.

The poll also found that large majorities of Californians favor new, more aggressive goals for combating climate change.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they support a proposal to require half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030. And 73 percent favor cutting petroleum use in vehicles by 50 percent.

Those are key pieces of Senate Bill 350, a bill introduced earlier this year by Senate leader Kevin de Léon.

Other findings from the PPIC survey include:

• 88 percent of adults favor building more solar power stations in California.
• 78 percent want to boost tax credits and other incentives for rooftop solar panels.
• 49 percent favor building the Keystone XL pipeline, while 38 percent are opposed.
• 56 percent oppose increased use of fracking to extract oil and natural gas. It’s the highest level of opposition since PPIC started asking about it in 2013.
• 53 percent approve of Gov. Jerry Brown’s job performance, while 47 percent approve of the way he handles environmental issues.
• 39 percent approve of the California Legislature’s job performance.
• 57 percent approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance.
• 29 percent approve of Congress’ performance.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

Courtesy Sen. Kevin de León’s office

As many as 7,000 low-income Los Angeles residents could eventually take part in a state-funded electric car sharing program that rolled out last week.

State and city officials celebrated the soft launch of the endeavor — which aims to improve air quality by cutting carbon emissions — at an L.A. affordable housing complex.

City officials hope to establish as many as 100 vehicles as part of the pilot program, which the state is partially funding through a $1.6 million award. The city expects to use an additional $8 million “in in-kind city resources and private operator investment in equipment and operations,” according to L.A.’s  Sustainable City plan.

The state money comes from California’s controversial cap-and-trade program, designed to curb the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. Critics call it a pollution tax that unfairly burdens large industries.

State Senate leader Kevin de León speaks at roll out of electric car sharing program in L.A.
Photo courtesy de León’s office.

“Fighting smog and climate change so that our kids can breathe clean air requires more transportation options that don’t rely on dirty fossil fuels,” state Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, said in a press release. “This electric car-sharing pilot project offers a glimpse of the future, and represents the type of shift in policy, infrastructure, and behavior that we need.”

Officials say the project will educate residents about car sharing and transportation alternatives, install electric vehicle charging stations and introduce an electric car sharing fleet.

Specifically, it will “provide affordable last mile/first mile solutions for low-income families and other residents who do not own a car or need a second car for trips requiring a light duty passenger vehicle,” according to L.A.’s  Sustainable City plan.

“Our EV car sharing pilot is a perfect example of how our state’s cap-and-trade dollars should be put to work: providing transportation options for Angelenos in need, and helping us achieve our clean air goals outlined in my Sustainable City plan,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti added in the news release.

The program is formally called the Car Sharing and Mobility Options in Disadvantaged Communities Pilot Project. It is run by the California Air Resources Board, and originated last year after the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown signed two of de León bills, SB1275 and SB535, according to the Senate leader’s office. Those laws direct CARB to invest the state’s cap-and-trade revenue into programs that bring clean air and jobs to communities heavily impacted by climate change and poor environmental quality.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, said SB168 would indemnify emergency responders who damage a drone during firefighting, air ambulance or search-and-rescue operations.

Earlier this month, aerial fire crews responding to a blaze that swept across Interstate 15 north of San Bernardino had to pull back after five drones were spotted above the fire.

It was the fourth time in a month that a drone had disrupted wildfire response in the region, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service. Gaines introduced SB167 earlier this summer to increases fines and introduces the possibility of jail time for drone use that interferes with firefighting efforts. Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, co-authored both bills.

“Private drones don’t belong around these emergencies. That is the first message I want to get out,” Gaines said in a news release. “But if one gets damaged or destroyed because it’s in the way then that can’t lead to financial penalty for the people trying to save lives and property. It’s unfortunate, but that’s all it is. People can replace drones, but we can’t replace a life. When our rescuers are risking their own lives to protect us, I want them thinking about safety, not liability.”

Gaines also said it’s his hope that the advent of effective “jamming” technology could keep drones away from emergency response areas and flight paths.

He went on to say that “public education efforts could ensure that the safest, least-damaging methods for avoiding or disabling unauthorized drones will be the primary methods used in these crises.”

In a phone interview on Friday, Gaines said its his understanding that the federal government is working on a technology that would jam a certain frequency used by private drones.

Some government agencies are already using drones, or have plans to do so, to monitor areas including wildfires.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

Daniel Parks / flickrMore than a month after Gov. Jerry Brown called for lawmakers to hold a “special session” on transportation funding, California still doesn’t have a plan for how to close its annual $5.7 billion shortfall for road, bridge and highway repairs.

More than a month after Gov. Jerry Brown called for lawmakers to hold a “special session” on transportation funding, California still doesn’t have a plan for how to close its annual $5.7 billion shortfall for road, bridge and highway repairs.

Brown said in his Inaugural Address in January that fixing the shortfall was a top priority in 2015. He referenced a $59 billion backlog in deferred maintenance, but that sum could balloon, transportation experts say, if bridge and road repair projects are neglected and require infrastructure replacement.

“All the data out there shows our roads are deteriorating, both at the state and local levels, at an alarming pace,” said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance For Jobs. “If we don’t address it, the costs will skyrocket.”

Road reconstruction costs are tenfold higher than proper maintenance, added Earp, whose organization represents construction companies and unions.

While this debate is centered at the Capitol, its implications will be felt across the Golden State where motorists stand to pay a hefty price as roads get worse.

Driving on roads in need of repair costs California drivers $18.4 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs, according to TRIP, a national nonprofit transportation research group based in Washington, D.C.

That amounts to an average of $762 per California motorist, and is hundreds of dollars more per year than motorists in Nevada, New York and Texas pay.

A report released by TRIP last week showed 15 metro areas in California rank among the nation’s worst for road pavement conditions. Those rough roads mean big bucks for drivers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, where the associated vehicle maintenance costs top $1,000 annually, according to the report.

Tax increases

This year, Democratic lawmakers have submitted a range of ideas to plug the funding gap, and ultimately start fixing more roads.

They include a $10 billion plan by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, to charge all drivers a $52 annual road user fee.

Her five-year plan would also accelerate loan repayments from the state’s general fund that are owed to transportation accounts. Additionally, it would free up $1 billion per year by returning truck weight fees to transportation funds instead of using them to repay debt owed by state government.

Also in the mix is San Jose Democratic Sen. Jim Beall’s SB16, which would raise the gas tax by 10 cents per gallon, bump up the vehicle registration fee by $35 annually while also charging a new $100 annual fee for zero-emission vehicles.

The 10-cent increase would leave California with the highest gas tax in the nation.

Republicans, meanwhile, say they have no appetite for tax hikes and want to use existing funds to pay for the state’s crumbling road infrastructure.

Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Riverside, lashed out at California officials for their years of diverting money from transportation repairs after an Interstate 10 bridge collapsed earlier this month during a severe storm east of Coachella.

Built in 1967, the bridge was listed as “functionally obsolete” on the 2014 National Bridge Inventory, meaning it was no longer considered adequate for the high volume of traffic it handled. The listing did not mean the bridge was inherently unsafe, but instead was built to outdated capacity standards.

“It was one of hundreds of bridges across our state in need of replacement or repair,” Stone said in a press release. “Maintenance and repairs of California’s bridges and highways have been neglected far too long. Millions of taxpayer dollars, approved by voters to build and maintain our bridges and highways, have been siphoned away to programs that have nothing to do with infrastructure, transportation or highway safety.”

Out the door without a plan

Lawmakers held two special sessions in early July, then left the Capitol for a month-long recess a week later without a firm plan for moving forward.

Some, including Earp, said progress was made.

“I think there’s some good karma going on,” Earp said. “There’s a much greater chance that something will get done than we’ve had in quite a while. There’s a lot of traction on it.”

Still, getting a two-thirds vote in the Legislature for any new taxes will be a “heavy lift,” Earp noted.

Republicans in the Assembly are frustrated that Democrats waited until this summer to make transportation funding a priority rather than dealing with it in the spring budget process given the state’s higher revenue totals.

Some are less-than-optimistic that a deal will be reached, unless key pieces of their plans are incorporated, a GOP spokeswoman said.

“We’re stuck in proverbial political traffic,” Amanda Fulkerson, spokeswoman for the Assembly Republican Caucus, said.
Republicans in the Assembly proposed the following to raise $6.6 billion for road repairs:

• Dedicate 40 percent of the funds in California’s cap-and-trade program, generating $1 billion annually
• Use existing funds from vehicle weight fees, for $1 billion annually
• Invest half the governor’s strategic growth fund into shovel-ready road projects, for $200 million annually
• Eliminate redundancies at Caltrans, saving $500 million annually
• Eliminate 25 percent of the state’s long-term unfilled employee positions, saving $685 million annually
• Make a $1 billion commitment in the state general fund for transportation

The road ahead

The next round of special session meetings won’t start until lawmakers return to the Capitol Aug. 17, at the earliest.

From the initial sessions, it appears lawmakers want “a portfolio approach” taking the best pieces from existing plans rather than looking for just one solution, said Jay Day, chief of staff for Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley. Frazier is chair of the assembly’s special session panel tasked with addressing the problem.

Day added that ultimately lawmakers need to fashion a bill that’s to the liking of Gov. Jerry Brown, who has said he doesn’t favor another transportation bond.

They won’t have much time. The deadline for the Legislature to pass bills is Sept. 11.

“Everything’s on the table,” Day said of funding options. “We’re in dire need. We have a nearly $6 billion shortfall every year.”

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

The Safe and Responsible Drivers Act was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013 to allow qualified unauthorized immigrants to drive legally. It went into effect Jan. 2 after a long preparation period.

Supporters say the goal of the law, also known as AB60, is to make roads safer by insuring more drivers.

Critics, meanwhile, have said AB60 condones law-breaking. Some have said the licenses could be used to commit fraud and that it could increase security risks.

The nearly 400,000 licenses for applicants who are in the country illegally represent more than half the total number of original licenses issued by the DMV from January through June.

“The latest numbers reflect the continued successful implementation of AB 60,” said DMV Director Jean Shiomoto, in a recent press release. “The DMV was determined to develop a process that would not only meet the stringent requirements of this new law, but also the unique needs of our newly expanded customer base.”

Applicants must prove their identity and California residency, as well as meet all other licensing requirements such as passing the knowledge and behind-the-wheel exams.

The governor’s budget has estimated AB60 will cost $141 million over three years, according to the DMV. The majority of costs cover new agency staff.

The state expects to process as many as 1.4 million applications for the new licenses over the next three years. The state’s Motor Vehicle Account, which receives money from DMV license fees and other charges, will be used to pay for the program, the agency has said.

Wait times ballooned at DMV offices across the state after the program started in January, attributed by the agency to a larger-than-expected surge in applicants.

The average wait time in January for walk-in customers was 90 minutes statewide, according to the DMV. It was down to 60 minutes in February.

Altogether in the first six months of 2015, the DMV issued 759,000 original driver licenses. That includes approximately 397,000 for applicants through the new program, according to DMV figures.

The distribution of licenses is on pace to surpass the number of original licenses issued in recent years. Those figures are as follows: 902,028 in 2014; 863,196 in 2013; and 803,567 in 2012.

The state says there are more than 25 million current driver licenses issued in California.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno

The next time you grab a ride with Uber or Lyft, a California lawmaker wants to make sure a registered sex offender isn’t behind the wheel — something the ride-hailing companies say they already go the extra-mile to prevent.

Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, recently introduced a bill that would ban ride-hailing companies from using any driver who is required by law to register as a sex offender.

Lyft, Uber and other smartphone-based ride-hailing companies already use private background checks on potential drivers. But there’s no California law explicitly banning sex offenders from driving for the companies.

“At a minimum, registered sex offenders should not be a part of this industry,” said Trent Hager, Galgiani’s chief of staff, told CalWatchdog.com on Tuesday.

Reports of alleged assaults by ride-hailing drivers on their passengers have surfaced in recent years. Galgiani’s bill was not sparked by any such incident in California, but instead seeks to prevent one from happening, Hager said.

In a written statement, a spokesman for Uber said the company’s “policy already prohibits publicly registered sex offenders from partnering with Uber as drivers on the platform.”

The company added that all Uber drivers “are required to undergo an extensive background check, which is performed on our behalf by Accurate and/or Checkr. Both are accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.”

On its website, Lyft states “We also do not allow individuals to drive who are registered on the National Sex Offender Registry and DOJ50-State Sex Offender Registry at the time our background check is conducted, regardless of how long ago the individual was put on that registry.”

The industry’s growing popularity has exposed it to extra scrutiny in California, where state officials say ride-hailing firms should be regulated like taxi companies.

In the taxi industry, driver applicants must pass criminal background checks administered by local agencies, including police and sheriff departments.

Rick Wright, of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department’s licensing division, which performs background checks on taxi driver applicants in the San Diego region, said being a registered sex offender would disqualify a potential taxi driver.

Galgiani’s bill was introduced July 8 as a “gut-and-amend” replacing a bill she previously introduced on an unrelated topic.

It is expected to be heard in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee in August, after lawmakers return from a summer recess.

To become law, it must be approved by the Senate, Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.