HUMBOLDT TODAY: Hope you enjoyed your relatively dry Wednesday — your reprieve ends now. Sheriff Honsal declares a state of emergency in hopes of securing outside funding. Plus, we have the results of Tuesday’s local election. (Yes, there was one.) Those stories and more in today’s newscast with John Kennedy O’Connor.

FURTHER READING: 

• Humboldt County Cannabis Farmers Blast ‘Misleading’ Ballot Initiative That Would Impose New Restrictions on Cultivators; Supervisors Form an Ad Hoc Committee to Work on Alternatives
• Sheriff Declares Local State of Emergency in Response to Winter Storms
• Big Town Hall on Eureka Transportation and Infrastructure at the Jefferson Center Tonight
• Newsom’s Climate Budget Would Slash Funds That Protect Coast
• New Cost Estimate for High-Speed Rail Puts California Bullet Train $100 Billion in the Red

HUMBOLDT TODAY can be viewed on LoCO’s homepage each night starting at 6 p.m.

Want to LISTEN to HUMBOLDT TODAY? Subscribe to the podcast version here.

###

Dozens of impassioned cannabis farmers and allied community members spoke out during Tuesday’s Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting to urge the board to shoot down an initiative that would restrict commercial cannabis cultivation across the county.

The Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI), if approved by voters, would effectively prohibit new cannabis-growing operations across the county and impose a host of stringent rules that would forbid farms larger than 10,000 square feet, limit cultivation permits to one per person/corporation or per parcel, ban mixed-light and indoor grows, among other impacts.

The Board of Supervisors reluctantly agreed to place the initiative on the March 2024 ballot last fall. At that time, staff agreed to provide a thorough analysis of the initiative and bring it back to the board for discussion at a date uncertain. 

On Tuesday, the board took its first look at staff’s analysis and explored the possibility of creating an ad hoc committee that would work with the initiative’s proponents to either modify existing county rules or find an alternative to the ballot measure.

The analysis, prepared by Planning and Building Department staff, was presented to the board during Tuesday’s meeting. It emphasized that the existing county regulations “are intended to encourage a well-regulated cannabis industry in Humboldt County.” While the initiative claims it would protect the county’s residents and natural resources from harm caused by industrial cannabis cultivation, staff argue that it would “have the opposite effect by making compliance so difficult that the legal market is rendered not viable in Humboldt County.”

Planning and Building Director John Ford highlighted numerous issues and “unintended consequences” outlined in the initiative. For example, the initiative forbids the approval of a cannabis cultivation permit that would result in multiple active permits.

Ford | Screenshot

“What is meant in this particular case by no approval?” Ford asked, noting that the initiative would require permits to be renewed annually. “If you’re talking about an approval, a renewal is an approval. So is the intent here that – in the context of renewal and application – a site can’t have more than one active permit and an applicant can’t have more than one active permit? In all honesty, it’s not clear what’s intended by this. It’s an unclear provision within the initiative and it makes it extremely difficult to implement and extremely problematic.”

Under the worst-case scenario, Ford said cultivators with multiple permits would have to give up all but one, adding that it would be “very difficult for [the permit holder] to completely change their business model.” Under the best-case scenario, the requirement would prevent the issuance of multiple permits to a single entity.

Ford added that the initiative would be extremely difficult to enforce – both financially and physically – because of the additional staff that would be needed to inspect “all public complaints” and conduct annual inspections required for permit renewal. He also expressed concern that the increased regulations would push cultivators back into the illegal cannabis trade.

“[Permit holders] could not install new water tanks, they could not install the solar facilities; a lot of potential environmental enhancements would not be able to be installed [under this initiative],” Ford said. “We believe that the county has been successful in allowing people to step into the legal market. Humboldt County has traditionally not been a legal market, and we can only speculate in terms of what people would do if their primary legal form of cultivation were to be taken away.”

He added that the vast majority of permit holders affected by the increased regulations would be people who were farming before legalization and stepped up to come into compliance with county and state rules. 

“They came out and declared themselves to be cannabis farmers,” he said. “They gave us their names, their addresses, their phone numbers and they applied for permits and they’ve gone through the process. They’ve spent thousands and thousands of dollars to improve their propert[ies], to address conditions that the county has placed on them, and this [initiative] would put them in a place where potentially they couldn’t further modify their site.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn noted that the initiative stemmed from a neighborhood dispute over a 40,000-square-foot cannabis growing operation in Kneeland back in the fall of 2021. The group of disgruntled residents claimed the grow op’s hoop houses would be plainly visible from some of their homes along Barry Ridge. The group arranged a meeting with county officials at Kneeland Elementary School and, ultimately, the permit holder agreed to reduce the size of the project to 10,000 square feet.

However, the residents felt the county ought to do more to protect residents and natural resources from large-scale cultivation. The group embarked on a vigorous signature-gathering effort and last year the initiative qualified for the March 2024 ballot.

Bohn pointed to several other instances in which the county staff worked with an applicant or permit holder to address concerns brought forth by neighboring residents, noting that it’s “usually to the benefit of the neighbor more so than the applicant.” He questioned whether the formation of an ad hoc committee would make any difference.

“The system has worked up ‘til now, up ‘til we got this,” he said. “One of the items on [the agenda] is about forming an ad hoc committee to work with them. … I’m hearing that they don’t want to discuss [it]. They have their signatures [and] it’s going to the ballot. So, before we spend a lot of time putting [together] an ad hoc committee that has nowhere to go, I’m just wondering [if that is] an actuality?”

A little later in the discussion, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell read an email that was sent the day before from one of the organizers of the initiative that confirmed the group’s intent to place the initiative on the ballot. “The initiative was agreed by 7,000-plus informed Humboldt County citizens and had more than the legal required number of signatures, as determined by the Humboldt County Elections Office, and therefore should propose for voters consideration on March 2024,” the email stated.

Had he been aware of the email, Ford said he would have amended his presentation to include a recommendation for the board “to look at our legal alternatives …  if they’ve already stated that they’re not willing to have a discussion to try to reach a common mind and common understanding of what’s best for the entire county.”

Bohn reiterated the initiative is “probably unenforceable” because of the staff time required. He added that if the initiative were to pass, “it just doesn’t put a nail in the coffin, it digs the hole, names the cemetery and puts everybody in it in a mass grave.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo asked how the county would process new permit applications “given that we would have met and exceeded the threshold outlined” in the initiative.

“Basically, what it allows is that any application that was complete as of the date of the filing could be finished,” Ford explained. “The permit cap … was 900 and something and we’re at 1,027 right now. … So we could not take in applications for new cultivation.”

Bushnell asked if farmers would be able to reduce the size of their cultivation sites under the ordinance. “Currently, multitudes of farms are considering reduction,” she said. “What does that look like with this initiative?” 

Ford said a reduction would not require a permit modification; they would just have to contact the county. “We would then respond to the state inquiry to see if they were in good standing and in compliance based on the size that they’ve declared to us,” he said. “I don’t see that as being a complication.”

Before moving ahead to public comment, Bohn reiterated his concerns surrounding the creation of an ad hoc committee and asked to hear from the writers of the initiative. “If they say, ‘No, we’re gonna roll our dice and go right to the voters,’ that changes everything here,” he said. “If they’re not going to collaborate and we’re not going to get anywhere, make a motion as a county to come out against this and let it go to where it’s going. … But I would love to hear actualities that the writers of this initiative would even consider.”

County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes stepped in to note that the county is “not able to take a position of opposition or support” during the meeting. “Any county efforts will be to educate the public on impacts [or] pros and cons,” she said. “It’s important that we don’t represent that we will be opposing or supporting any particular initiative.”

Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone asked if any of the initiative’s writers were willing to speak to the board’s concerns. No one spoke up in the audience and there were already several hands raised in the virtual queue but there was no way to immediately identify the callers, so the board went ahead to public comment.

A few commenters, including Wendy Kornburg, owner and operator of Sunnabis Farms in Southern Humboldt County, were embarrassed to admit that they had signed the petition to put the initiative on the ballot without fully understanding what it would do.

“I was absolutely misled,” Kornburg said. “I was told that [it] would help small farmers. It would help us, you know, fund our road infrastructure, which of course is not true. … [The] initiative was given to people to sign without full disclosure of what it was. I also normally read things entirely and I did not this time. I will never do that again.”

Nicole Riggs, an affiliate researcher with the Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, referred to the initiative as “the Karen Initiative,” and called it “as misleading as it is dangerous.”

“The [farms] that the proponents [of the initiative] say they care about are the small permitted farmers,” she said. “Permitted farmers follow the rules. They comply with water storage. They pay fees. They have inspections. … The [staff] report has stated that 90 percent of active farms have no violations. Farmers are motivated to comply, but ask yourself: Will this initiative cause the cost of compliance to be greater than the cost of non-compliance?”

Matt Kurth, the owner of Humboldt Cannabis Tours, predicted that the initiative “would destroy cannabis tourism within one year” because it requires multiple permits. 

“Anyone who has a tourism permit – of which we only have three right now – as soon as they have to renew their permit they will be forced to choose between their cannabis permit [and] their tourism permit, which means they’ll lose their tourism permit. … If we want to do cannabis tourism at all in the future here in Humboldt County, that means this initiative can’t pass.”

Riley Morrison, cannabis farmer and director of the Willow Creek Community Services District, urged the initiative’s proponents, Betsy Watson and Mark Thurmond, to withdraw the ballot measure and work with cultivators to “develop policy that works for the community environment.”

“If this initiative passes, it will destroy my ability to implement my business plan and will wither our farm down to its bones,” he told the board. “My wife and I … designed our farm business with a phased build approach, allowing buffers through poor market conditions and time to accumulate the capital to develop. … Over the next two years, we plan to build a barn allowing a new roofline, increased solar collection [and] develop farm stay and ecological tourism components. If this initiative is passed, this type of development will be considered cultivation expansion, requiring us to reduce our cultivation by 65 percent to implement rendering the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested … useless and a total loss.”

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, blasted the initiative proponents for failing to show up to Tuesday’s meeting, claiming “they have circumvented the collaborative process.”

DeLapp | Screenshot

“The fact that they are not here, that they have not called in, that they’re not here to defend their document is contemptuous,” she said. “They’re not here. We are here. We’ve been here with you and we need your help. We need your support. We need you to oppose this initiative. We need you to educate the public. We need ongoing education because clearly, the public does not understand what we have been through for the last eight years.”

Approximately 50 community members spoke during the two-hour public comment period, all of whom spoke against the initiative in one way or another.

Returning to board deliberations, Arroyo said she received an email from at least one of the proponents of the initiative during the break who said they could not attend the meeting because they were snowed in and had “limited connectivity.” She said they “expressed willingness to meet and talk” through some of the aforementioned issues, but “neither of them overtly stated that they would be willing to consider withdrawing the initiative.”

Arroyo also acknowledged that some people may have felt misled by the petition, but emphasized that “there are plenty of people who sat down and read the initiative before signing.”

“With more than 7,000 signers, surely some people understood the impact that this would have,” she said. “And I’ve heard from folks who did not feel comfortable coming into this room to express a different position. I think it’s worth acknowledging that there are people who might have felt differently who didn’t want to be here today because it was too intimidating.”

A disgruntled murmur could be heard from the crowd and Arroyo said she didn’t “need any heckling from the crowd.” She reiterated that she was “just voicing what I have heard from residents who have not felt comfortable entering the conversations” and said she looked forward to further collaboration.

Hayes reminded the board that efforts to establish an ad hoc committee “should not be construed as advocacy one way or the other.” The ad hoc committee would serve as a way to continue engagement between the county and the initiative proponents. She added that the board could “choose to take a position of support or opposition” to the initiative at a future meeting.

Bohn emphasized that he is “110 percent opposed to [the initiative] as it sits right now” and made a motion to appoint Arroyo and Ford to the ad hoc committee. Bushnell also expressed interest in sitting on the committee. Bohn obliged and amended his motion to include Bushnell. Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson seconded the motion.

After a bit more discussion, the board unanimously approved the motion in a 5-0 vote.

###

PREVIOUSLY: 

• An Initiative to Reshape Humboldt’s Cannabis Industry Qualified for the Ballot, and It Has Growers Worried
• Supes Agree to Put Controversial Weed Initiative on the 2024 Ballot, Though They Hope to Work With Organizers on Alternatives

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal has declared a Local Emergency as a result of the significant impact of ongoing winter storms throughout the county. 

Consecutive major winter storms have resulted in a large accumulation of snow, impassible roadways, downed trees, disrupted utility services, damaged and flooded roadways, mudslides, damaged structures and dead livestock; these impacts exhausting and exceeding available county resources.

Additional snow and rain in the forecast are expected to bring significant risk of downed trees, potential flooding in small streams and rivers, power outages and road blockages. 

The declaration allows for the county to seek state and federal reimbursement for damage repairs and other associated impacts. The amount of funding depends on the agencies that assist, including the State of California and federal government.

The County of Humboldt is requesting all available response and recovery assistance from the State of California and its agencies, including the California Public Utilities Commission, and the United States government and its agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Governor of California, including funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act and the federal Stafford Act.  

For updated information regarding Humboldt County’s emergency response, please go to humboldtsheriff.org/emergency and visit @HumCoOES on Facebook and Twitter.

###

Eureka!

If you’re interested in housing development and/or public transportation, know that Linc Housing — that company that will be building a bunch of units on public parking lots downtown — will be holding a public meeting tonight at the Jefferson Center to talk about what sorts of infrastructure and/or transportation improvements people would like to see in the city.

According to a flyer passed out at the City Council meeting last night:

The City of Eureka and Linc Housing invite you for a second community event about an opportunity for public transportation and infractructure improvements. This is part of a joint application for state funding.

We will share the results of the Community Survey and a refined list of potential improvements. If our application is successful, these improvements will increase safety and connection in the city.

Interested? The meeting takes place at the Jefferson Center (1000 B Street) and on Zoom. Doors open at 5:30 p.m., and the presentation runs from 6 to 7:15 p.m. Register to attend in-person at this link, or register on Zoom here.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget would cut funding for coastal resilience projects almost in half, eliminating more than half a billion dollars of state funds this year that would help protect the coast against rising seas and climate change.

The cuts are part of Newsom’s proposed $6 billion in reductions to California’s climate change programs in response to a projected $22.5 billion statewide deficit.

California’s coastal resilience programs provide funding for local governments to prepare coastal plans and pay for some projects that protect beaches, homes and infrastructure at risk from rising sea levels. Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the planet, which melts ice and causes sea levels to rise.

Newsom’s proposal would budget $734 million for coastal resilience, a cut of 43% or $561 million compared to 2021 and 2022, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Some lawmakers told CalMatters that they are concerned about Newsom’s proposal to gut the programs that help coastal towns prepare for climate change and flooding, which already has damaged some communities.

Sen. Josh Becker, who chairs the Senate’s budget subcommittee, called the cuts “highly concerning,” especially because they are excessive compared to the cuts applied to other state programs.

“Most programs received 10% cuts,” Becker, a Democrat from San Mateo, said in an interview. “I’m very concerned about it, given the timing that we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most endangered in the state for sea level rise.”

Becker said he hopes to restore some of the money, possibly by finding federal funds to backfill some programs.

“These are dramatic cuts to something we agreed upon, and I’m going to try to get it back,” he said.

Newsom’s budget, released on Jan. 10, is not final, with revisions due in May.

“I’m very concerned about (the budget cuts), given the timing that we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most endangered in the state for sea level rise.”
— Sen. Josh Becker, chair of Senate Budget Subcommittee

Experts say there’s a lot at stake if sea level rise and coastal projects are not addressed now. Last month the state Department of Transportation, Caltrans, released a draft management plan estimating that it needs nearly $15 billion over the next ten years to protect bridges and roads from sea level rise.

A 2020 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects more than $20 billion worth of California property will be at risk or underwater by 2050 without planning and funding. “Waiting too long to initiate adaptation efforts likely will make responding effectively more difficult and costly…. The next decade represents a crucial time period for taking action to prepare for” sea level rise,” the report says.

Much of the funding on the chopping block is in the form of grants to local governments to fund projects and planning. Among the proposed cuts is $64 million for cities to prepare extensive management plans to prepare for sea level rise.

Chris Helmer, director of environmental and natural resources for the city of Imperial Beach, said “if the state cuts adaptation projects, that would be a concern.”

The city received about $200,000 to prepare a draft sea level rise plan, he said. It also has a grant pending with the Ocean Protection Council for another project to protect the city from encroaching seas.

“If there’s no money, that’s a major concern for us,” Helmer said. This winter’s storm exacerbated already massive flooding issues, he said. Waves broke on city streets, sand was driven well past the beach and rocks were thrown through residents’ windows. The cleanup took two months.

Up the coast in Ventura, the storms also undermined beachfront infrastructure and proved the value of a project at Surfers’ Point, partially funded by a $1.6 million state grant, that relocated a parking lot and bike path away from the water and protected the beach with a “living shoreline.”

The second phase of that project is contingent on a $16.2 million grant application with the state. The timeline to begin is this winter.

Cody Stults, the city’s associate engineer, said he is optimistic that the grant funding would survive the cuts, but added that there is no way the city could afford to pay for the next phase of the Surfers’ Point project.

“If we can’t get the money, I can almost guarantee that the work will not be going through this winter,” he said.

Among the statewide programs with deep proposed cuts are protecting the coast from climate change, with a 65% cut; adapting infrastructure to sea level rise, a 74% cut; and implementing SB 1, a 63% cut.

SB 1 provides funding for much of the state’s sea level rise response. The author, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, said the threat is more urgent now than when the 2021 law passed.

“The intent of SB 1 was to empower communities to work to find solutions at the local level to address sea level rise in partnership with the state,” the San Diego Democrat said in a statement to CalMatters. “While we are facing challenging times, the past decade of responsible budgeting has prepared the state to withstand a downturn without devastating cuts to critical programs.”

In testimony before the legislature last week, Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot characterized the governor’s proposed cuts as “surgical.” When pressed to explain how the administration prioritized programs that would be trimmed, he said the focus was on addressing “clear and present danger.” He identified wildfire and water projects as posing a direct and immediate threat to Californians.

Environmentalists said the governor’s proposal to cut climate funding is shortsighted: Rising seas are often described as a “slow moving disaster,” as the most devastating impacts are projected to show up in coming decades.

“Sea level rise is here,” said Laura Walsh, California policy manager for Surfrider Foundation. While wildfires are a “huge deal and we don’t want to compare sob stories, at this particular moment, living on the coast feels like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning,” she said.

Newsom proposed the cuts right when California was lashed with a damaging series of atmospheric rivers, flooding and high surf, which was proof enough that sea level rise is harming the state now, said Donne Brownsey, chair of the California Coastal Commission.

Brownsey didn’t criticize the governor’s proposed cuts, but said she hoped they would be re-evaluated because coastal programs are critical to addressing an imminent crisis.

“What we saw in January was the trailer for the movie. That’s the way it’s going to roll,” she said. “We’re hopeful that given what happened — all the flooding and damage up and down the coastline — we are hoping there will be a reevaluation of these programs. It’s not a future problem. It’s today.”

Brownsey and others noted that past budgets have been generous, but also that their programs are increasingly under pressure.

“Living on the coast feels like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning.”
— Laura Walsh, Surfrider Foundation

“We still have unprecedented amounts of funding to make these investments. The state is committed,” said Jenn Eckerle, deputy secretary for oceans and coastal policy and executive director of the state’s Ocean Protection Council. “But we also know impacts are happening now and we know they are only going to get more extreme over time. We also recognize that failure to invest in planning now can lead to significant costs later.”

Crowfoot told the budget panel that state agencies have been scouring federal programs for money to backfill any state funding losses. About $4 billion in new federal money is set aside for coastal resilience projects.

The Newsom administration floated the idea of a general obligation bond to make up for the cuts, and a “trigger” provision that would restore funding if the revenue picture brightens.

But Rachel Ehlers of the Legislative Analyst’s Office told the Senate subcommittee that expecting revenues to rebound is “optimistic.” She said there is a strong chance that the deficit will grow.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his scaled down blueprint for the California bullet train four years ago, he proposed building a 171-mile starter segment in the Central Valley that would begin operating in 2030 and cost $22.8 billion.

Today, the blueprint is fraying, as costs now exceed future funding, an official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% and the schedule to start to carry people is slipping. It is raising fresh concerns about the future of the nation’s largest infrastructure project.

New cost figures issued in an update report from the California High-Speed Rail Authority show that the plan to build the 171-mile initial segment has shot up to a high of $35 billion, exceeding secured funding by $10 billion.

The cost of that partial system is now higher than the $33 billion estimate for the entire 500-mile Los Angeles to San Francisco system when voters approved a bond in 2008.

What’s worse, that full system cost is set at up to $128 billion in the update, leaving a total funding gap of more than $100 billion for politicians to ponder.

The cost estimate for the initial 171-mile segment now exceeds the $33 billion estimate for the entire 500-mile Los Angeles to San Francisco system when voters approved a bond in 2008.

Ethan Elkind, who watches California transportation issues as director of the climate change program at UC Berkeley’s law school, said the mounting problems cloud the project’s future.

“It is in jeopardy,” Elkind said. “It is dicey. There is no path forward for the full Los Angeles to San Francisco system. It is important that they get something done.”

The $128 billion price tag does not include cost updates for two separate segments between Palmdale and Anaheim, because the rail authority in the past has not updated costs until it completes environmental assessments. There could be additional jolts of sticker shock when those costs are added in the future.

“It is clear that additional funding will be necessary to deliver the…operational Merced to Bakersfield system for passenger service,” the report says.

Brian Kelly, rail authority chief executive, said in an interview that the higher costs, which have affected projects all over the nation, represents a “tougher challenge.”

“There has never been an easy time for this project,” he said. “Nothing’s ever been easy here. This project has never had full funding.”

Kelly notes that the range of estimates for the Central Valley segment goes from a high of $35 billion down to $28 billion. The price tag of the project has grown since 2008, exceeding all the prior cost ranges.

Potential engineering risks

The current struggle follows a period when the project had strong support from the Biden Administration and Congress. But the Republican seizure of the House in 2022 elections could auger tougher times ahead.

Bakersfield native and now House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has long called the project, which would serve his own district, a boondoggle.

“In no way, shape, or form should the federal government allocate another dollar to California’s inept high speed rail,” McCarthy said in a statement to CalMatters. “The California High Speed Rail Authority has missed countless timelines and deceived the public about costs which are exorbitantly higher than originally estimated.”

Among nonpartisan state analysts, the reliability of the new cost estimates is likely to come under sharp scrutiny, including by the state-appointed Peer Review Group.

Bill Ibbs, a retired UC Berkeley civil engineer who serves on the group and has consulted on international high speed rail projects, said he is concerned about the lack of attention to engineering risks.

“They don’t directly address the hard core engineering issues,” Ibbs said, particularly the 38 miles of mountain tunnels that are planned for Southern California alone. “What are the major engineering challenges that lie in front of you and why aren’t you talking about them in this report?”

Population decline = ridership decline

The report also indicates that the date for operating the 171-mile system could stretch out to 2033 from 2030, which would delay the public benefits and account for cost pressures.

And possibly more worrisome is a cut to the projected future ridership by 25%, owing to the reality that the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally reduced the use of public transportation and California’s expected population growth has fizzled. An important justification for the bullet train since its inception was an expectation that population growth would necessitate improved passenger rail. The report nonetheless asserts the system would perform comparable to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor passenger loads.

Those factors are beyond the rail authority’s ability to control, though it has struggled with construction problems of its own in the Central Valley over the last 10 years.

More than 1,000 change orders, originated by the rail authority or by contractors, have been approved and account for much of the cost growth. They include big ticket items, such as miscalculating the need for massive barriers to prevent freight trains on nearby tracks derailing and crashing into a bullet train. About 20 change orders for that item alone run over a half billion dollars.

Construction has been held up because of problems relocating utilities, such as underground sewers, water lines and gas pipes. Currently, about half of the 2,800 projects to relocate underground utilities have not been completed, according to a separate status report issued by the rail board’s finance and audit committee. Two dozen major structures, such as viaducts and bridges, have not even started construction.

Newsom, Democrats mum on report

But those problems are being solved and major disputes over change orders are in the rear view mirror, the report said. Out of 2,300 parcels of land for the rail, only 92 remain to be acquired.

Newsom adopted his plan for a starter system in 2018, based on a strategy that demonstrating an operational system in the Central Valley would stoke public support for building the more expensive passages through coastal mountains to the Bay Area and Southern California.

That idea preceded significant cost growth that has outstripped funding, leaving Democrats in the Legislature increasingly skittish and Republicans calling for a full blown retreat.

“It is on life support now,” said Sen. Brian Jones, a San Diego County Republican and Senate minority leader. “The governor has not been able to deliver on any of his promises.”

At this point, Jones says the project should be stopped and potentially the existing structures in the Central Valley demolished if they can not be repurposed.

Democratic leaders have declined or did not respond to requests for interviews. Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Kelly believes there is a reasonable path forward. The report, issued on March 1, sets a goal for the rail authority to obtain $8 billion in federal grants under the Bipartisan Instructure Law enacted by Congress last year.

The entire pool of money for rail enacted in the infrastructure law is $75 billion, so $8 billion would appear to be a reasonable share for California. But the Biden Administration and Congress were far more generous to the Amtrak system in the law, allocating roughly $24 billion to its operations while failing to set aside any guaranteed chunk of money for California. Moreover, there are other passenger rail systems in California, which may want a share of any money headed to the Golden State.

Kelly acknowledges that the $8 billion goal is “aggressive and rightly so” because California is paying for 84% of cost so far. “If the national government wants to get a national cleaner, faster electrified rail system it has to do better than 16% And so we’re going to make that case.

“I think it’s reasonable and a prudent ask,” Kelly said. The state will know by early next year whether it will get the lifeline. Without it, the funding shortfall will be breathtaking. Before then, the Senate and Assembly will hold hearings in the next month.

Will voters OK more spending?

“It is certainly a significant funding gap,” said Helen Kerstein, who covers the rail project at the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Absent very significant additional federal funds, the state will need to contribute additional funding to get that segment from Merced to Bakersfield completed.”

Kerstein notes that the project failed to get a funding boost from the general fund when the state was flush with surplus tax receipts in recent years and now the state is struggling with a deficit and the likelihood of more to come. At the same time, there are other priorities.

Kerstein adds, “It’s going to be tough.”

Elkind, the UC Berkeley law professor, said ultimately the state will have to go back to voters and ask for another bond issue if there is any hope to build the complete system.

“It’s going to be harder to go back to the voters and ask for more funding, but I think that’s ultimately what’s going to be needed, which is why it’s so critical that they finish this first segment,” he said.

“It is incredibly sad that it’s going to take two decades from when the voters approved this just to get the first essentially 25% of the system going — which is also the 25% of the system that is serving the fewest number of people population wise in California along the route.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Donald Nicholson Miller, passed away peacefully on Saturday, February 25, 2023, in the home he loved in Fortuna. He was born on September 25, 1942, in Pasadena to Donald Furlong and Shirley Russell Miller.

His father worked for General Motors and they moved frequently until he became the owner of Pioneer Dodge dealership in San Jose, and they settled in the Bay Area, where Don lived for many years.

Don loved nature, cars and gardening. He brought snakes home at the age of five. One of the snakes got away and was found in a neighbor’s yard, where a young boy was playing with it. He was eight years old when he got his first bird of prey, a sparrowhawk, that he took from a nest when he was sure the bird was old enough to survive out of the nest. He named the bird, Michael. Later he got Josephine, a female sparrowhawk, which he gave to his brother, David. At the age of 13 he found a screech owl nest in the hollow of a tree. He took one of the baby owls and named it Sammy. Sammy would sit on Don’s shoulder when he rode his bike, then Sammy would fly up around Don’s head and land back on his shoulder. In the early 1960s he found an “eyas” or “eaglet” golden eagle which he took out of the nest. He took the bird home and named her “Illegal the eagle.” In 1966 “Illegal” made headlines in the San Mateo Times when she flew over to a neighbor’s home and was using her talons to pull up the roofing. He became a master falconer and hunted with birds of prey, including eagles, falcons, and hawks for many years. He loved all animals, especially cats, and there was always at least one in his home. One cat, who he named Butch, would go for walks with him and the neighbor kids would ask if Butch could come out and play.

Don and his dad rebuilt a 1930 Model A Ford, which he drove through his high school years. He purchased a 1957 Ford T-bird in 1963 and has been restoring a 1959 Porsche Cabriolet for many years.

His daughter says her dad could do pretty much anything and everything! From building a beautiful redwood deck with a hot tub, to laying a large all brick patio, a greenhouse out of scrap old windows, to a hawk house! He refinished the cabinets and floors and painted the exterior of his home in Fortuna. He loved gardening, plants and drinking his coffee. Every morning he would sit in a chair on his front porch, looking out at the beautiful trees, begonias, and other flowers he had planted that lined the brick walkway up to his front porch.

He attended San Jose State College where he was a member of Sigma Nu Fraternity. During his time at SJSC, he was Master of Ceremonies at numerous events including the annual Sparta Sings, Under the Spell of Music. He graduated with a master’s degree in business.

As a 1st Lieutenant in the Army, he served in Viet Nam for two years 1969-1970 when he was released from the army to teach at San Jose State College. His professional career included working for Levi-Strauss and Westinghouse.

His interest in art and painting began at an early age and continued until his death. Don experimented with numerous mediums and finally chose acrylic because it dried quickly and he could get brilliant colors. He referred to his style as “ultra-realism” because he wanted his paintings to look like photographs. After retiring he and his wife, Sue, moved to Fortuna and they dedicated full-time to his art, traveling to shows from the North Coast to the East Coast and into Canada. He won numerous awards for his wildlife art including Alaska and California Ducks Unlimited Stamps, Washington State Duck Stamps, and Canada Conservation Stamps. Because he was a gifted artist, his legacy will live on through his art.

He was preceded in death by his parents, his first wife, Betty, and his son Alex. He is survived by his wife, Sue Ann, his daughter Christine Gomez, grandchildren Jacob and Chloe, and stepdaughters Tamara Orlando, Teresa Foreman, and Tara Veronda (Tim) and grandchildren Nate, Ashley, Amanda, Jimmy, Michael, and Ella, his brother Dave (Billie Kay), Sister Jude Melrose (Phil), and Sister Susie Miller.

A celebration of life will be held on Saturday, March 11, from 1-4 pm, at 1444 Ross Hill Road, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints building. Lunch will be served. In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to the Humboldt Wildlife Care Center.