Judge backs Calif. high-speed rail over farmers

Updated 9:55 PM ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. A judge denied a request Friday from Central Valley farmers who sought to halt work on California's ambitious high-speed rail project, allowing work on the $68 billion project to continue at an aggressive pace.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley denied a request for a preliminary injunction, saying that the agency overseeing the project "acted reasonably and in good faith" in trying to comply with California environmental law.

Groups representing Central Valley farmers had hoped to stop the California High-Speed Rail Authority from all planning and engineering work because of their claims that the authority did not thoroughly weigh the potential environmental harms of the project.

• California OKs funding for high-speed rail line
• Not everyone on board with Calif. rail plan

Frawley did not rule on the merits of their case, which is expected to be heard this spring, but said he was persuaded that the state generally sought to comply with California's rigorous environmental laws, and that the potential harm to the state was much greater than the potential harm to farmers along the route.

The rail authority's chairman, Dan Richard, applauded the decision.

"Both the voters and the Legislature have spoken on high-speed rail," he said in a statement. "The judge's decision ensures that we can continue to move forward with our preparatory work to build the first segment of high-speed rail in the Central Valley, with a plan to break ground next summer."

The initial section will be a 65-mile segment running from Merced to Fresno, in the heart of California's agricultural industry.

In making his ruling Friday, the judge acknowledged that California laws require an understanding of a project's harm to the environment. Yet he said he did not feel there was sufficient reason to grant farmers a preliminary injunction, since actual construction is not slated to begin until July 2013.

The rail authority argued in court that the potential harm to the state for halting the massive transportation project was far greater than the objections of Central Valley farmers and landowners — up to $3.2 billion in federal funding if the bullet train does not meet federal deadlines, and $8 million to $10 million in higher construction costs.

"In this case — forgive me — we don't really care what goes on statewide. We're very concerned about what's happening in our county, and what's happening in our county is very real and it's happening every day," said Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, one of the parties to the lawsuit. "My guys can't get operating loans to plant trees next year. My guys can't get operating loans to buy equipment for expanding their operations because they're in the footprint of the alignment."

The decision allows the rail authority to begin buying land along the proposed route and continue with site surveys, engineering design work and geological testing that began months ago.

Jeff Morales, chief executive of the rail authority, said the agency takes farmers' concerns seriously and wants to address them.

With the court decision out of the way, "we can begin interacting with property owners much more directly and start working with them to address their particular concerns," he said outside court.

The rail authority has already surveyed more than 300 parcels of land along the proposed route since Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation giving his approval in July.

Lawmakers approved the first phase of the planned 800-mile line this summer, allowing the state to begin selling $2.6 billion in bonds for construction of the first 130-mile stretch of the bullet train in the Central Valley. That approval also allowed the state to tap $3.2 billion from the federal government.

The money is contingent upon completing the first phase of the project by 2017, requiring what officials say is an unprecedented construction pace.

Voters approved issuing $10 billion in bonds for the project in 2008, but public support for the plan has dwindled in recent years as the project's expected costs have soared. The most recent estimate is at least $68 billion for the completed project linking Northern and Southern California.

In one of their court filings, opponents said rail officials are spending furiously because they hope "to become so financially committed to the currently conceived section alignment that it will be unthinkable to later choose another course."

[magnumdr]

This will be a high speed train to starvation!

[eroteme2]

Anyone want to bet the judge voted for Obama?

[mcrich3]

This project is a liberal left wing project that will bankrupt the state. What a farce. Our government can't run a post office and make money and now they think they can operate a high speed train.

On another front, isn't it amazing that there are no 'environmental concerns' about the construction of this project? If this were any other project, the dems would be getting their environmental lawsuits ready to stop destroying the environment.

Welcome to the Soviet Union of California

[mcrich3]

You have to read this from the article - read it twice to really understand....

Frawley did NOT rule on the merits of their case, which is expected to be heard this spring, but said he was persuaded that the state generally sought to comply with California's rigorous environmental laws, and that the potential harm to the state was much greater than the potential harm to farmers along the route.

[geezer-dude]

This is a rail to nowhere. The Democrats are like children. They will spend every penny for years to come on ridiculous items. If they find a dollar on the ground, they will waste it on something just to put this nation further in debt. Then they lose the elections and Republicans are charged with trying for fiscal responsibility and they lose the election for trying to balance the budgetby cutting. Until the nation is on its knees, will anyone wake up? It will be years and years before this train moves and Ca is near bankruptcy. Who is paying for this disaster??

[Colt4542]

I think high speed rail is a good thing - provided the right of way is down the median of existing free ways. There is absolutely zero reason to grab more land for yet another 'modern' construction project. Florida considered and rejected the Feds offer for funding of high speed rail. But at least the proposed route was between major cities and utilized existing right of ways. I have not been on an airplane since 2001 and have no plans to ever do so again. But I would ride a train.

[duzmafuzt]

Money is not an issue. The rail must be made. We can hire Chinese builders to save money. The stupid repukeplicans need to get out the way.

[mcrich3]

to Dumfart

Of course you say build it. You have no intention of paying for it.

[tsigili]

Development, always wins.......the people always lose.

[nojoy01]

I see a major disaster in the making here. Merced, pop. 80,000. Fresno, pop. 500,000. 65 milss apart. How many people in Merced work in Fresno, or vice-versa? How many people in Fresno will want to go shopping in Merced? True, there will be some people in Merced who will make day trips to "the big city", although probably not enough to fill even one passenger car. And these "bullet" trains do not make intermediate stops between point A and B. Business travellers? So, how many businesses need employees to move back and forth between Fresno & Merced on a daily basis? P-u-h-lease. So passengers paying for this enterprise is a no-go. Freight? These things, generally, don't do freight. And if it does? Compare. Moving product from one city to the other. You load the truck at one end, it spends an hour-and-a-half on the road, then you unload the truck at the other end. By rail? You load the freight onto a truck, unload the truck onto the train, unload the train onto another truck at the other end, and then unload the truck at the freights destination. You handle the freight twice as much, using maybe twice the people, and considering the loading/unloading time, plus waiting for the trains schedule, take LONGER to move the freight from one city to the other. Freights a no-go also. In the end what do you have? A very expensive, ecology damaging, farm destroying, trendy piece of hardware that will be supported by taxpayers, both state & fed, for the forseeable future. Possibly as long as their is a state & fed goverment. Ah, but the whole sysetm, when constructed, will connect norther & southern california. OK, great. But why? Just how many people do you expect to be moving from one end of the state to the other on any given day? One minor thing the people touting the european high-speed rail systems conveniently forget to mention. Those high-speed rail systems are supported by goverment subsidies. Yup, ordinary citizens tax dollars, most of whom never have and never will ride one of those trains, make up the difference between revenue & operating costs. They suck tax dollars people, from the time the preliminary studies begin until...well, as long as they have tax dollars to keep them running, possibly forever.

[hypnotoad72]

As long as our government keeps giving taxpayer money to corporations that offshore jobs, you needn't worry about who sucks what for too much longer.

[mcrich3]

Good points. Well said. Unfortuneatly, we live in a society where a balanced budget is not an issue. Just tax the rich. Let them pay for this thing. They have too much money. What will happen when the rich have no more money?
Why do you think that 90%+ of all bond measures pass? It is because people believe if you finance a bad project over time we can afford it. If we had to pay cash for projects, it would solve many problems.

[nohater]

wonder how many acres of food producing land the high speed railway will destroy? doesn't CA produce most of the food consumed across the nation? CA has already destroyed no doubt millions of farmland acres with its building of homes, cabins, etc.

[hypnotoad72]

Agreed.

My knee-jerk reaction to the headline was to side with the farmers.

Then I'd read the article.

It'll now be easier to travel quickly from the lower end of the state to the upper end back... of course, who lives on the north end and needs to go all the way down? Or vice-versa? Or how many stops there are between endpoints... Maybe if the train is used for freight (as well as people)... I dunno.

I'm somewhat ambivalent, but as farmers already have enough trouble keeping up with ag corps and their use of illegals to drive down wages to drive everyone else out of business...

[fiddlestickawshucks]

The United States and especially California are so deep in debt we will not be able to get out of it for generations to come.
Recently in the city where I live; they announced on the evening news that a building that has been vacant for years is eing torn down and a new school is going to be built.
Great; right.?
However this school is going up in an area of derelict homes that have been vacant for years.
The city here is so broke they are constantly reducing the number of firestations and police officers because they can't afford to pay for these really "vital" services.
My question is "If the cities and states are so bankrupt; where are they getting the money from for new projects when the don't even have funds to maintain our current infrastructure.
Makes absolutely no common sense to me; but then again; nobody has ever accused any of our local, State or the Federal government of having any common sense.!!

[duzmafuzt]

Stop letting the one percent get away, with not paying taxes. Duh.

[mcrich3]

to dumfart: I hate to confuse you with facts but according to the IRS:

In tax year 2009, the 1% paid 37% of all income taxes.

the top 5% paid paid a whopping 59% of all income taxes.

the bottom 50% paid 2% of the income taxes.

Your liberal talking points are false.

[wfw3536]

So where are all of the environmentalist and Obama backers now? I guess because it is high speed rail it ok to destroy these beautful lands.

[hypnotoad72]

We're still here.

I had no idea Obama was the Governor of California... Since you know everything, who was the governor of California when this project was conceived? If that governor was voted out at some point, why would the next one then keep the project? What would convince the new governor to keep the project rather than to scrap it?

I did a quick search after typing all that - yes, a former governor did start the project and was later voted out. The successor (whose name is mentioned in the article) has continued it.

Why not ask both former and current governor for more details via written or verbal communication, since both are deemed "liberals" in your eyes, and whatever "liberal" is defined by your mindset.