WASHINGTON – Massive House and Senate transportation bills moving this week total well over 1,000 combined pages, without designating a single California project.

Welcome to the no-earmark world, where bills once famed for their pork are shorn of locally targeted funding. California lawmakers and lobbyists must now find new avenues for hometown help.

"California is a donor state. We give more in taxes than we get back, and earmarks have been one way we try to compensate," Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, said Monday, "so we will have to work this legislation."

The lack of targeting is markedly different from the last transportation financing measure, whose 6,371 earmarks included hundreds for California projects.

All told, the 2005 bill itemized nearly $2.5 billion for Golden State projects identified as "high priority," according to the California Department of Transportation. California also secured an additional $1.3 billion in itemized "transit" earmarks, such as buses for Yosemite National Park.

The 2005 bill also epitomized the power of individual lawmakers to work their will. The then-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, secured an astonishing $726 million for Kern County projects, more than was delivered to Los Angeles and San Francisco counties combined.

One earmark in particular, Alaska's so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," made other earmarks politically toxic. As new wave of conservatives reclaimed Congress in 2010, both houses agreed to ban them as a sign of a new way of doing business.

On Tuesday, the House unveils its latest, long-awaited transportation package. Separately, several Senate committees will be marking up a different version this week. The bills contain many differences, but agree on omitting the earmarks that made the last several transportation bills both popular and ultimately so controversial.

This year's no-earmark pledge means, for instance, that Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California cannot use her chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to explicitly aid home-state projects – at least in traditional earmark fashion.

Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento noted that "it is unclear what the House transportation bill will look like in light of the earmark ban."

Still, even with an earmark ban, there are ways to steer money to local communities. California lobbyists and lawmakers can try to bulk up programs where the state might fare well either through grant competition or through formula-driven funding. The bills also can emphasize general programs important in the state.

"I think California is poised to get its fair share, or more than its fair share," Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said Monday. "I think we're in better shape than (in)years past."

Dunham inserted in the House bill a provision easing transportation requirements governing California cattle ranchers. More broadly, he predicted the emphasis on block grants will "take most of the politics out of the process," as the California Transportation Commission will set statewide priorities.

The 599-page Senate bill includes funding for air-quality and freight-rail programs that, while not mentioning California specifically, are likely to pump money into the state. Thirty-eight of the state's 58 counties, including much of the Central Valley, are designated as "non attainment" for air-quality standards. This potentially qualifies them for air-quality project funding under the Senate bill.

Both bills also would significantly boost the existing Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act credit program, which treats California well. The existing program, for instance, has provided low-interest loans to aid construction of the South Bay Expressway toll road in San Diego County and the Tranship Transit Center in San Francisco.

The Senate and House bills boost this program to $1 billion a year, up from the current $122 million.

All told, the Senate bill approved by Boxer's committee last November authorizes about $85 billion over two years. California would likely claim an estimated 10 percent of the total, which is about par with current funding levels.

"We intend to get this done," Boxer said at a news conference last Friday, adding that "we have made great progress."

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Call Michael Doyle, Bee Washington Bureau, (202) 383-0006.

• Read more articles by Michael Doyle