Dave Cortese

California's High-Speed Rail Authority secured only one of the several legislative priorities it said were needed to keep the Merced-to-Bakersfield rail segment on schedule. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1425, letting the authority issue permits to utilities, local governments and developers on authority-controlled land, but broader proposals—faster environmental reviews, expedited court dispute resolution, sales tax exemptions on construction materials, and new authority to tap local tax revenue near the rail line—stalled or were never formally introduced. Local officials strongly opposed the tax-revenue idea, calling it a raid on funds needed for services and road repairs.

A separate bill from Sen. Henry Stern to let the authority spend more state climate funds outside the Central Valley segment died in committee, as did a utility-relocation bill from Sen. Scott Wiener. The authority and lawmakers traded blame over the losses. The project, now estimated to cost $126-231 billion with full buildout by 2040, depends on $1 billion in annual state carbon-auction funding that could shrink under pending climate rule changes, adding further uncertainty to its timeline.

California legislators quietly inserted $1.3 billion in earmarks into this year's state budget, funding projects from a Santa Barbara college gym renovation to a Marin County farmers market and a minor league baseball stadium in San Jose. The money, allocated through Assembly Bill 113, was added just days before the legislative session ended, with lawmakers keeping their individual requests confidential until after passage.

An analysis found more than 40% of the funds went to nonprofits, with Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties—home to top Democratic leaders—receiving outsized shares, while many Republican-represented rural counties got little or nothing. Beneficiaries ranged from arts groups and museums to a mixed martial arts fighters' retirement fund and nonprofits with ties to Governor Gavin Newsom. Critics, including nonprofit advocates and taxpayer groups, say the closed-door process rewards political relationships over need, especially as the state confronts federal healthcare funding cuts. Legislative leaders defend the practice as a way to address urgent local needs efficiently, though even some lawmakers acknowledge the lack of transparency is problematic.