LOS ANGELES —
The California High Speed Rail Authority had asked the three-member STB in October to clarify federal jurisdiction over the project by considering whether a state court can enjoin construction under the California Environmental Quality Act of a line the board has authorized.
The request comes as the rail authority faces seven lawsuits on the proposed 800-mile high-speed passenger train system that could delay construction.
The federal board publicly released its ruling on Monday, which applies to the 114-mile second section of track between Fresno and Bakersfield.
The rail authority completed the CEQA environmental review process in April even after the federal board made it clear that it has jurisdiction over the line. The rail authority argued that even though it completed the CEQA process it was not waiving preemption arguments related to the state's environmental law, according to the ruling.
The California Court of Appeal previously decided in favor of Atherton and other Northern California cities in a ruling that stated the California environmental law is not preempted by federal jurisdiction. But another California Court of Appeal came down with an opposite ruling in a case not related to high-speed rail, Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority, which was accepted for review by the California State Supreme Court on Dec. 10.
Opponents argue that preemption intrudes upon California's sovereignty and the issue is not ripe for injunction based on arguments of delay, because the state does not plan to begin construction on that segment of the line until 2015.
The board found that the decision was ripe given that several CEQA lawsuits have been filed and permanent injunctive relief can be filed at any time.
The court in Atherton failed to acknowledge that the reason why CEQA is categorically preempted is because environmental review under CEQA attempts to regulate where, how and under what conditions the authority may construct the line, according to the federal transportation board's ruling.
"The application of CEQA here would constitute an attempt by a state to regulate a matter directly regulated by the board," the board wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Ann Begeman said "the majority's main focus has been on getting out of the authority's way instead of providing much needed review and oversight."
Begeman added that the majority's ruling could have the unintended consequence of spurring further litigation related to bonds authorized for the project by California voters in 2008. The voter authorization for those bonds requires approval under CEQA.
Critics of the rail project could ask the federal board to reconsider or appeal the decision in federal court.
