Trump administration to cancel $929 million in California high-speed rail funding |

Trump administration to cancel $929 million in California high-speed rail funding

Los Angeles Times
A full-scale mock-up of a high-speed train is displayed at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. The Trump administration plans to cancel $929 million in U.S. money for California’s beleaguered high-speed rail project and wants the state to return an additional $2.5 billion it’s already spent.

The fate of California’s high-speed rail project was cast into further doubt Tuesday when the Department of Transportation announced plans to cancel $929 million in grant funds, a move that some viewed as political payback.

The action marks an escalation in the battle between President Trump and the state of California since Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week that the project lacked a path to complete a statewide system and vowed to scale back the $77 billion mega-project.

The Transportation Department also said it was “actively exploring every legal option” to get back an additional $2.5 billion grant that is being used to finance the construction of 119 miles of rail line in the Central Valley.

The two federal grants represent about one-fourth of all the funding for the project to date — money critical to completing the Central Valley portion and finishing environmental reviews for other segments between San Francisco and Los Angeles. If the funds are lost or tied up in a long legal battle, the state would probably have to either make up the money elsewhere or further curtail the project.

Newsom on Tuesday vowed to block the move, arguing that it was political payback by the Trump administration.

“It’s no coincidence that the Administration’s threat comes 24 hours after California led 16 states in challenging the President’s farcical ‘national emergency,’ ” Newsom said in a statement, referring to Trump’s emergency declaration to secure funding for his wall on the Mexican border. “The President even tied the two issues together in a tweet this morning. This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won’t sit idly by. This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it.”

Earlier in the day, Trump had declared on Twitter, “The failed Fast Train project in California, where the cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!”

Ronald Batory, chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, the transportation agency that made the grants in 2009 and 2010, laid out a lengthy legal argument Tuesday for why the state was out of compliance with the grant agreement. Batory said in a three-page letter to California High Speed Rail Authority Chief Executive Brian Kelly that the state “has materially failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and has failed to make reasonable progress on the project.”

Batory alleged that the state had failed to spend required matching funds, falling short by $100 million as of December. He argued that it will fail to complete the Central Valley construction by a 2022 deadline required by the grant. Batory also said the state has not submitted required financial information — such as reports on what has been delivered to date — that would allow federal regulators to oversee the grants. It also has failed to take corrective actions after regulators raised concerns in 2017 and 2018.

The letter also cited Newsom’s State of the State speech last week that outlined a plan to build a limited operating segment between Merced and Bakersfield as a “significant retreat from the state’s initial vision and commitment.”

The rail authority said Tuesday afternoon that it would respond in detail to those allegations in coming days.

Newsom said in his speech that the project needed to be rethought and that the initial run would be within the Central Valley, not the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles route voters approved a decade ago.

“But let’s be real,” Newsom said in the speech to lawmakers. “The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There’s been too little oversight and not enough transparency … . Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were. However, we do have the capacity to complete a high-speed rail link between Merced and Bakersfield.”

In the hours that followed Newsom’s speech, Trump demanded that California return $3.5 billion in federal funds, and headlines proclaimed the Democratic governor was abandoning the ambitious project championed by his predecessors — a story line that Newsom denied and one that his team has scrambled to correct.

Although Newsom said the full project will eventually be completed, his tough remarks clearly sent a signal about his tepid support for the project and triggered some managers in the project office to consider leaving.

Whether the Trump administration can actually cancel the $929 million grant, which in legal terms is called “de-obligating” the funds, remains unclear. The possibility of ordering a refund of the $2.5 billion grant that is already being spent is even a bigger legal uncertainty.

Former congressman Jeff Denham, a Central Valley Republican who chaired the House rail subcommittee and is an outspoken critic of the project, spent years with his staff trying to figure out whether it would be possible to de-obligate the funding and ultimately decided it could not be done by congressional act.

The federal action to terminate the grant wades into uncharted legal territory.

“I can’t recall of any precedent,” said Art Bauer, a longtime state Senate Transportation Committee staffer who was deeply involved in the early planning on the high-speed rail. “They never claw back money. They are saying you are not getting money we committed to you. They are setting up a big fight.”

But in this case, Bauer said, “the governor unwittingly gave the federal government a reason to back away from the project.”

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.