In a sign of frustration over the state’s transportation priorities, several board members with the high-profile Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority have made the argument that it makes far more sense to use money that Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to spend on a bullet train route in the Central Valley on Los Angeles-area projects instead.

Newsom made international headlines in February when he pulled back from predecessors Jerry Brown’s and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s commitment to have the California High-Speed Rail Agency build a statewide high-speed rail network. Instead of continuing to try to secure all the funds needed for the $77 billion project, Newsom said the state should focus on completing a 110-mile segment from Merced to Bakersfield that is expected to cost $12.2 billion.

Five L.A. Metro board members – Hilda Solis and Kathryn Barger, both Los Angeles County supervisors, Inglewood Mayor James Butts, Los Angeles Councilman Paul Krekorian and Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian – think that’s a bad idea.

At a recent Metro board committee meeting, Solis said that “many, many projects” in the Los Angeles region would be more helpful in meeting state transportation goals.

In a motion they crafted for the Metro board’s consideration, they wrote that the Central Valley segment “has little value for public transportation and limited greenhouse gas reductions. Regional rail transit improvements in the Los Angeles region would be more cost effective with more substantial mobility benefits.”

The Curbed Los Angeles website reported that the five decided not to ask the full Metro board to endorse the motion, evidently after being reassured that the state would help fund some of the local projects that Solis had praised. But the sharp criticism from five board members of Metro – one of the nation’s largest transportation agencies, serving 10 million people in a 1,400-square-mile region – is a powerful reminder that even with Newsom’s scaled-back version, the state’s bullet-train project faces considerable skepticism.

Cost, viability of Central Valley segment questioned

The Central Valley route faces two of the same key criticisms that the statewide project did under Brown.

Its initial cost estimate of $6 billion has more than doubled, just as the statewide plan’s cost soared from $34 billion to $77 billion.

Under Proposition 1A, the 2008 ballot measure providing $9.95 billion in bond funding for the project, every segment is supposed to generate enough revenue to be self-supporting, with taxpayer subsidies banned. But assumptions that linking Merced, population 83,000, with Bakersfield, population 380,000, will lead to ridership that is heavy enough to cover the cost of bullet-train operations is tough to square with the fact that presently, there are only six conventional train trips daily between the cities with an average ticket price of $27.

Questionable assumptions about ridership have been common from the state rail authority. For example, in 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that the authority projected annual ridership of up to 31 million passengers after the Los Angeles-San Francisco route was complete. That’s about the same number of annual riders as Amtrak, which operates in 46 states.

On Wednesday, the rail authority is expected to release more detailed plans from the Newsom administration for the Merced-Bakersfield segment.

“This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won’t sit idly by,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement issued soon after the Transportation Department announcement. “This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it.”

Newsom’s depiction of the decision as a Trump vendetta can be buttressed by the president’s repeated clashes with California over federal policies, but the state may face more of a difficult fight to retain bullet-train funding than top officials are willing to admit. While $929 million of the federal funding was directly approved by Congress – the other $2.5 billion came from the massive economic stimulus bill of 2009 – both chunks of money are covered by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rules that are meant to ensure federal funds are used properly.

Lack of ‘reasonable progress’ can trigger refund demand

One such provision specifically applies to the $2.5 billion that the Department of Transportation may want refunded: “Any failure to make reasonable progress on the project or other violation of this agreement that significantly endangers substantial performance of the project shall provide sufficient grounds for the FRA to terminate this agreement.”

As the Los Angeles Times reported in November, the California High-Speed Rail Authority was 13 years behind schedule in completing the now-$77 billion project. Citing a lack of available funding, Newsom has at least for now suspended moves to build the train beyond a route already under construction in the Central Valley and forced out longtime rail board chairman Dan Richard.

Yet the project isn’t just on shaky grounds on the question of proper use of federal funding. In mid-2009, in its application for federal stimulus dollars, the state of California made representations to the U.S. Department of Transportation about the project’s solid financing, careful planning and strong accountability provisions that have been repeatedly belied by state audits and reviews as well as independent reporting.

The Obama administration – which was disappointed that California was the only state to accept federal high-speed rail funding – was content to extend deadlines to try to help the Golden State project find its way. Under Obama, rail officials also rejected complaints from California House Republicans that the state project was breaking federal rules.

State claimed it had sound project in requesting stimulus funds

But if the U.S. DOT chooses to go after the California High-Speed Rail Authority, it has a wealth of examples that it can site to show the state’s 2009 grant request made false claims about the soundness of the state project. The short list:

— In January 2010, the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that the rail authority didn’t have a legal business plan because it anticipated using promises of subsidies if revenue estimates fell short to attract investors. Such subsidies were explicitly banned by Proposition 1A, the 2008 state ballot measure providing $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the then-$34 billion project. This is why the project has never attracted outside investors, unlike projects in Europe in which governments promised to share the risk if revenue goals weren’t met.

— In April 2012, to reduce the cost of the project – which had ballooned to $98 billion – Gov. Jerry Brown and rail authority officials announced that they would instead pursue a $64 billion “blended” rail system in which high-speed trains shared much-slower regular tracks for approximately 45 miles in the crowded urban areas on each end of the primary San Francisco-Los Angeles route. But as critics – including former state Sen. Quentin Kopp, considered the father of the state’s bullet train project – immediately noted, this meant that what the state wanted to build wasn’t actually a high-speed rail line linking San Francisco and Los Angeles. That’s what was promised to state voters in 2008 and the federal government in 2009.

— In October 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that it had obtained documents that showed primary contractor Parsons Brinckerhoff had warned the rail authority in 2013 that a $9 billion cost overrun was likely on the project’s initial phase from Burbank to Merced. The authority didn’t disclose this to the public or revise cost estimates upward – decisions that could have been prosecuted if done by publicly held corporations.

What happens next from here is murky. But as the Associated Press noted, the federal government doesn’t need California to write it a check to get its money back. If the Department of Transportation concludes the state didn’t live up to its commitments with federal funds, it could withhold federal dollars on unrelated projects until it gets back all the money that it believes was misspent.

“Our world, our way of life, our system of governance all are at immediate and genuine risk. Endless new weapons systems, growing antagonism among nations, the poison in our politics, climate change,” Brown said. “All of this calls out for courage, for imagination and for generous dialogue.”

The Democratic governor touted what he sees as accomplishments, including guiding California from an economic catastrophe along with promoting the state as a leader on issues like climate change and immigration reform.

Overall, the 79-year-old governor portrayed California as an example to be followed while lambasting the “poison of our politics,” an apparent reference to Trump and the GOP agenda in Washington.

“Despite what is widely believed by some of the most powerful people in Washington, the science of climate change is not in doubt,” Brown told the Legislature. “All nations agree except one, and that is solely because of one man: our current president.”

Citing headlines like “California Is Doomed” when he entered the office for a second time in 2011, Brown pointed to the extension of cap-and-trade, a budget surplus and pension reform as reasons to bet on the Golden State in years to come.

“All these programs are big and very important to our future,” the governor continued. “And their passage demonstrates that some American governments can actually get things done – even in the face of deepening partisan division.”

However, Republican critics argue the current state of the pension system is still untenable and the high poverty rate and skyrocketing cost of living are issues yet to be adequately addressed in Sacramento.

“Some people are spending 50 percent of their pay on rent,” Republican Assembly Leader Brian Dahle said after the speech. “With increasing taxes, they’re raising revenues off the back of people here.”

And the address would not have been complete without reference to Brown’s bullet train project, with him admitting that “I make no bones about it. I like trains, and I like high-speed trains even better.”

The price of the high-speed rail connecting the north and south of the state has faced increased costs in the decade since voters approved it. For example, as the Los Angeles Times noted, the first installment – from Bakersfield to Madera – is already $4.6 billion over budget.

“Yes, it costs lots of money, but it is still cheaper and more convenient than expanding airports and building new freeways to meet the growing demand,” Brown said in defense. “It will be fast, quiet, and powered by renewable electricity and last for a hundred years.”

Overall, Brown exits with his state having positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against President Trump. In addition to several lawsuits challenging Washington on issues like sanctuary cities and fracking, culturally, California has come to embody all things anti-Trump.

“Here in California, we follow a different path,” the governor said.

While Brown did not comment on the current race to fill his office, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom stands as the overwhelming frontrunner and, aside from his opposition to the bullet train, is campaigning on a platform that’s mostly consistent with Brown’s wider agenda, suggesting that in 2018, voters may choose to continue the direction the outgoing governor envisions.

The new administration in Washington, D.C., has added another hurdle to California’s already difficult road to high-speed rail.

Drawing fire from Democrats and cheers from Republicans, the Department of Transportation “has deferred a decision on a $647-million grant that would help Caltrain electrify a section of track between San Jose and San Francisco, a project crucial to California’s struggling high-speed rail project,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “The decision not to approve the grant by a key Friday deadline may be an early sign of the Trump administration’s view of the bullet train project. The line is already under construction and will need significant federal funding moving forward.” 

That funding has been coveted because of the additional grants it triggers if approved. “The federal grant, if it is ultimately awarded, would be matched by another $1.3 billion in local, state and regional investment, including funds from the high-speed rail agency,” the Fresno Bee reported. 

An ongoing struggle

Although the rail effort has been hamstrung by ballooning costs and time projections and repeated downward revisions of its original ambitions, Gov. Jerry Brown and his allies have labored to portray opposition as anti-innovation. With Democrats and Republicans at the federal level both making overtures to infrastructure reform, the governor swiftly sought to criticize the Transportation Department move accordingly. “If you’re not for that, you’re really not for infrastructure,” Brown told Dan Morain of the Sacramento Bee. “The only thing you can say for that is it’s scoring political points by politicians that know better.” 

“The move follows directly on the heels of a letter from 14 California Republicans, who pleaded with Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to block the federal grants and argued that the money would be wasted,” the site added. “The letter was spearheaded by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee that oversees railroads.”

Staunch opposition

State and Congressional GOP have held a firm line against the bullet train, one of a relative few of big-ticket policies pushed by ruling Democrats that hasn’t tapped a very deep reservoir of public support. “Killing the project entirely before larger amounts of money are poured into it is probably the best taxpayers could hope for,” wrote Baruch Feigenbaum of the Reason Foundation, summing up the standpoint of Golden State conservatives and libertarians.

“But that’s not likely to happen on Gov. Jerry Brown’s watch. Brown has been committed to creatively diverting money to the rail system and will continue to do so. So California should take a cue from President Trump, who has called for increased private-sector investment in infrastructure projects, and explore whether or not there are standalone sections of a high-speed rail system that make financial sense for private companies.”

Although the Department of Transportation did not put a timeline on how long its deferral of a decision on the train would last, it may also have to first decide whether to grant Republicans’ wish for tighter oversight over the project altogether. “Members of California’s GOP delegation had asked the Transportation Department to block approval of the grant to electrify a Caltrain line between San Jose and San Francisco until an audit of the bullet train’s finances is completed,” as the Bee reported. “They said that providing additional funding to help the $64 billion high-speed rail project would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.”

Dams aren’t the only part of California infrastructure on the hot seat. Following a big-ticket Sacramento request for federal building funds, a new report has concluded that the number of state bridges in dangerously inadequate condition reaches into the thousands. 

“Of the 55,000 bridges across the U.S. that were deemed structurally deficient in a report published by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, more than 1,300 California bridges fall under that category,” KCRA and the Associated Press reported. “That means that of the 25,431 bridges in the state, 5 percent have one or more key bridge elements – deck, superstructure or substructure – that are considered to be in ‘poor’ or worse condition, the analysis found.”

Although the bridges haven’t been labeled near collapse, the numbers threw the sheer scale of California’s infrastructure woes – amid heavy costs on marquee projects like high-speed rail – into stark relief. “The state has already identified 4,075 bridges that need repair, which comes with a price tag of $12 billion,” the channel continued. “Across the country, ARBTA noted that deficient bridges are crossed about 185 million times a day. The top 14 most-traveled deficient bridges are in California.”

Hat in hand

A near-catastrophe surrounding the potential failure of the state’s Oroville Dam has thrown additional light onto what California gets for its spending and doesn’t. “Shock over the emergency evacuation downriver from the Oroville Dam has given way to serious questions about how California is coping with its aging infrastructure – which the American Society of Civil Engineers says would cost the state a staggering $65 billion per year to fix and maintain after years of neglect,” the San Jose Mercury News observed.

Residents and officials are divided over where that kind of money should come from. “Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed investing $43 billion in infrastructure over the next five years, with the vast majority of the money going to transportation,” the paper added. “California voters approved a $7.5 billion water bond in 2014 for a range of needs from flood control to water storage, but that falls far short of needs for flood control and increasing the water supply.”

Wishes and hopes

In fact, the state has drafted up a bid for $100 billion of federal infrastructure funding on over 50 projects, itemized in a letter from Gov. Brown to the National Governors Association. “Brown’s administration has pledged $4.3 billion of the state’s budget to go toward the repairs on the list, and has given legislative leaders a deadline of April 6 to submit candidates for any transportation funding,” the San Francisco Business Times reported. “Other projects on the state’s list for federal funds include levees, reservoirs, bridges, ports, recycling centers, public transit upgrades and more veterans services operations.”

Oroville Dam wasn’t mentioned on the list; California’s stop-and-start high speed rail project, projected to run well over the budget authorized by voters, was. “The state said Saturday that repairs to the primary spillway at Oroville Dam — the nation’s tallest earthen dam — could run as much as $200 million but that was before critical damage to the emergency spillway,” CNBC noted. “Repairs to both spillways are likely to run much higher than the rough estimate provided by the California Department of Water Resources.”

Although California’s once-cozy relationship with the White House, forged between leading state Democrats and Barack Obama’s administration, may be history, officials have made reassurances that their focus on infrastructure — a priority shared with president Trump — will not be in vain. “State Transportation Agency Secretary Brian Kelly told reporters he plans to meet soon with new federal Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to discuss the wish list,” the Los Angeles Times reported. Chao, wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, won confirmation to the position as one of the most experienced and established members of Trump’s cabinet. 

Some Californians have long complained of their state’s status as a so-called “donor state” — one that sends more money to Washington than it receives. But as political tensions with the White House have heated up, and some federal funding put in play, at least rhetorically, analysts have crunched the numbers, shedding fresh light on the relationship between Sacramento and the nation’s capital. 

Hard to untangle

California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, an independent body, “has pored over the data to calculate a number that is the monetary essence of California’s relationship with the United States,” the Los Angeles Times noted. “And what a number it is: The federal government spends some $367.8 billion a year on California. That’s an average of about $9,500 for every woman, man and child in the state.”

“In truth, the money isn’t spread out evenly. About 56 cents of every federal dollar spent in California, according to the analysis, goes to health or retirement benefits — Social Security, Medicare and money for low-income residents’ health care through the Medi-Cal program. Defense contracts are the next biggest slice of the pie, followed by paychecks to military and civilian government employees. From there, federal spending gets sprinkled among a number of programs run by the state government.”

The question of what Californians put in, however, has grown complicated over time. “Part of the difficulty stems from the tangled web of money that flows between individuals, the state and the federal government,” as the New York Times observed. “Perhaps the most cited figure comes from the Tax Foundation, a conservative group that found Californians got back about 78 cents in services per federal tax dollar paid in 2005. Other tallies have been higher: between 91 cents and $1.06 on the dollar, according to the Times. 

Limited authority

Although the widening political gulf between the White House and leading California Democrats spurred the interest in recalculating what taxpayers receive, experts have cautioned that even a battle of wills with Washington won’t likely result in a freeze on federal cash. “Key court decisions restrain the federal government’s ability to put coercive strings on funding,” the Sacramento Bee recalled. “Some Republican as well as all Democratic lawmakers would object on behalf of their California constituents. And with upward of $67 billion in federal grants being funneled to the state annually, picking and choosing would quickly get complicated.”

“The Supreme Court, for one, has at times been skeptical about the federal government attaching conditions to funding. In a much-discussed 2012 decision on the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that the law had gone too far when it effectively threatened states with losing federal Medicaid funding if they didn’t expand their Medicaid programs to low-income adults.”

Sizing up cutbacks

At the same time, however, the prospect of additional federal grants in at least one controversial area have come under attack from within the state itself. “In a letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, California’s 14 Republican members of Congress asked that the administration block $650 million in federal grants the state wants to use to electrify a portion of commuter rail that runs between San Francisco and San Jose,” The Hill reported. “Republicans said the money, which would come on top of more than $3.5 billion in federal funding already granted for construction costs, would be wasted.” 

“The Obama administration provided billions in grant funding through the 2009 stimulus package and an omnibus appropriations measure in 2010,” the site noted. “California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to fund the project in 2008. But since the high-speed rail system was first proposed, costs have ballooned, from about $33 billion to more than $60 billion.”

Republicans have also eyed another place to pare back politicized funds. “Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, won’t request federal funds in the coming fiscal year for states, cities and universities that have a policy to not comply with enforcement of federal immigration laws,” according to a statement cited by the Los Angeles Times.

Assemblyman: Russian interference should be taught in schools

Good morning. Happy Thursday. We begin this morning with an inauguration eve question: Should Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election be taught in schools?

One assemblyman thinks so.

The extent to which Russia interfered is still being investigated, but reports suggest there’s consensus among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia hacked emails of Democratic officials and operatives in an effort to influence the election. The hacked emails were distributed to the news media, including CalWatchdog, throughout the election through the site WikiLeaks. 

Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County, has introduced legislation to require state educators to develop curriculum for students to learn about Russia’s involvement in the election.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Trump Transition: “In selecting former Georgia governor Sonny Perdue for agriculture secretary, Donald Trump dealt Abel Maldonado, the former California lieutenant governor and apparent finalist for the position, one more high-profile, if unsurprising, blow,” writes Politico. 

• Bullet Train: “A lawsuit filed in 2014 by Kern County against the California High-Speed Rail Authority will be dismissed under the terms of a settlement announced Wednesday afternoon by the state agency. … This is the third of the seven CEQA lawsuits to be settled.” The Fresno Bee has more. 

• AG appointment: “(Xavier) Becerra also said he’d defend and enforce recently approved voter-enacted ballot initiatives to speed up the death penalty process and legalize recreational marijuana.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

• State vs. Feds: “Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency cast doubt on whether California should continue to have power to impose its own emission rules for cars and trucks, an authority the state has enjoyed for decades that is also the cornerstone of its efforts to fight global warming.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Legislature:

• In at 9 a.m.

Gov.Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @sam_s_oh

Bullet train report prompts renewed criticism, investigations

Good morning. The bullet train faces renewed scrutiny after a report surfaced suggesting massive cost overruns. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, a “confidential estimate by federal regulators that the cost of California’s bullet train project could jump significantly has prompted critics of the $64-billion Los Angeles-to-San Francisco rail effort to call for new investigations and proponents to disclaim reports that project costs are growing.”

“State officials have accused The Times of mischaracterizing its findings. In a letter to members of the Legislature, the California High-Speed Rail Authority accused The Times of incorrectly using internal deliberations to suggest cost overruns and delays that are not borne out by facts.”

“But critics of the project said the federal analysis validates their concerns that the state will be saddled with multibillion-dollar unbudgeted costs for the foreseeable future.”

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Trump: “California’s expectations for Donald Trump’s presidency are in the cellar, with little more than a third of voters believing it will be a success, a new Hoover Institution Golden State Poll shows. But a plurality of voters holds more positive than negative views about some of Trump’s more controversial positions, including his call to restrict immigrants from certain countries, end sanctuary cities and to deport undocumented immigrants.” Politico has more. 

• ACA repeal: PolitiFact CA checks the accuracy of Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon’s claim that an ACA repeal could cost the state 200,000 jobs. Here’s a hint: You can’t measure the impact without knowing what the replacement is. In fact, CalWatchdog wrote something similar recently.

• Musical chairs: “As top California Democrats plot their future career moves, a critical piece of information is missing: Will Sen. Dianne Feinstein seek re-election? Speculation about the 83-year-old senator’s plans took on new urgency this year, as ambitious statewide politicians decide whether to run for governor with Gov. Jerry Brown termed out. News that Feinstein was fitted with a pacemaker last week reignited the parlor game, with California political circles discussing anew what the procedure might mean for the veteran lawmaker as she evaluates her options.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• 2018: “Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire and outspoken Donald Trump supporter, is considering a 2018 bid for California governor, according to three Republicans familiar with his thinking.” Politico has more. 

Legislature:

• Assembly in at 1 p.m., Senate in a 2 p.m. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @TomSchatzCAGW

In the latest bombshell, a confidential federal report points to cost overruns of at least 50 percent on the easiest, mountain-less leg of this complex infrastructure undertaking. The Federal Railroad Administration analysis, obtained by the Los Angeles Times last week, detailed a variety of other problems within the state’s rail administration, as well.

For instance, the project already is at least seven years behind schedule in building the first segment, which connects Merced in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley to Shafter, a small town just north of Bakersfield in the southern part of the valley. That section was supposed to be completed this year, but isn’t slated for completion until 2024.

“The federal document outlines far-reaching management problems: significant delays in environmental planning, lags in processing invoices for federal grants and continuing failures to acquire needed property,” according to the Times. Rail officials said the numbers are just projections, but the newspaper described the assessment as “a troubling critique by an agency that has been a stalwart supporter and longtime financier of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.”

There’s a two-fold problem here. The project faces increasing cost overruns – and its supporters continue to rely on funding sources that are far from secure. “In its 2012 draft business plan, the Authority identifies the federal government as by far the largest potential funding source for the program, yet the plan provides few details indicating how the authority expects to secure this money,” explained the California State Auditor in a 2012 follow-up report.

That was a problem during the rail-friendly Obama administration, but is uncertain during a Donald Trump administration. Trump has made favorable comments about bullet trains in general, but congressional Republicans generally have been opposed to California’s high-speed-rail project. This recent report has caused some of them to step up their criticism – and promise oversight hearings and audits – of what they widely view as a boondoggle.

Rail backers seem to have based their plan on the expectation of federal funding that might never be forthcoming. But that’s not the only area where their promises were unrealistic. Former judge and state Sen. Quentin Kopp, the one-time head of the California High-Speed Rail Authority and co-author of the Proposition 1A initiative that brought the project to life, came out against it. “I want to kill this iteration of it because it betrays the representations to the voters in November 2008,” he told the Times’ Patt Morrison, in a 2013 interview.

A series of lawsuits focused on the disparity between the rail authority’s latest iteration of the project and the promises made to voters in 1A in an attempt to do what Kopp suggested and derail the project. To help make a $9.95 billion project palatable to voters, the rail system’s backers offered guarantees within the wording of the initiative. The rail system would, for instance, go from L.A. to San Francisco in a nonstop trip taking 2 hours and 40 minutes. There would be no government subsidies for the operation of the system. The measure promised private investment, low fares and optimistic ridership projections. Yet the current plan is unlikely to live up to its core promises.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge in 2013 blocked the sale of rail bonds because of those disparities, but the decision was later overruled by an appeals court. Last month, rail officials announced the sale of construction bonds to finance the project, while project opponents filed another lawsuit to stop it. That suit argued that a new rail-related law passed last year to allow bond dollars to be spent on track-electrification also violated the terms of Prop. 1A and amounts to unconstitutional initiative revision that requires another vote of the people. There are other legal fights, also.

Rail authorities have made one substantive change after another. In its draft business plan released last year, the rail agency announced the train would first be routed to the San Jose area before heading over the formidable Tehachapi Mountains and into the Los Angeles basin. “The High Speed Rail Authority is desperate and wants to lay as much track as possible so that it becomes more difficult to stop the project,” said Board of Equalization Vice President George Runner, at the time.

Meanwhile, the agency’s reaction to the Federal Railroad Administration document suggests it is going to keep forging ahead, regardless of costs, in the hopes that a funding source will materialize to complete a project estimated at $64 billion before the latest projected cost overruns. Supporters are counting on revenues from the state’s cap-and-trade auctions and state funding to help keep the project moving ahead, but it remains far shy of full funding.

But as the Times’ Ralph Vartabedian explained, “(The state) Legislature already has balked at giving the rail authority the ability to borrow against future state revenues, saying it would have to make do with existing allocations. And that was before Gov. Jerry Brown warned … that California’s projected 2017-18 budget shows a $1.6-billion deficit.”

It’s already clear based on the rail authority’s own promises that the final project will not resemble the one promised to voters, especially given that the latest plan features a blended route by which bullet trains share tracks with commuter trains in the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions. The courts thus far have approved this disparity between promises and reality, but the increasingly obvious financial disparities might be the hardest ones for rail backers to overcome.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Issa leading bipartisan push for high-skilled visa overhaul

Good morning. Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! It’s a holiday, so we’ll keep it short.

With contending pieces of legislation now up for consideration in Congress, California has returned to the national spotlight on one of the most contentious immigration issues — special visas granted by the federal government to attract foreign talent.

Long critiqued by economic nationalists, including some Democrats, the H-1B visa program has been accused of undercutting qualified candidates in key industries who are U.S. citizens.

Leading a bipartisan effort to overhaul the program: Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “California’s bullet train could cost taxpayers 50 percent more than estimated — as much as $3.6 billion more. And that’s just for the first 118 miles through the Central Valley, which was supposed to be the easiest part of the route between Los Angeles and San Francisco.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• “Education spending rises under Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed state budget, but some California schools are bracing for cuts,” reports the Los Angeles Times. 

• California lawmakers are preparing to wage war with the Trump administration, but what exactly is at stake? The San Francisco Chronicle explains. 

• “California union dues case dies, but another rises up,” reports The Sacramento Bee. 

Legislature:

• Back tomorrow.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@cawatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @MarinKat