The ruling in November by a Superior Court judge in Sacramento blocked the state from using $8.6 billion in bond money to finance the first part of the train line, saying officials had failed to explain where they would find the remaining funds. That, in turn, jeopardized California’s access to more than $3 billion in federal matching funds, which are contingent on a state contribution.

In another setback, the state lost a bid to delay an environmental review of the first 29-mile section of the project, raising the prospect of additional costs and delay.

Before the ruling, California had identified nearly $13 billion in financing for the project, which is scheduled for completion in 2029: about $9 billion in state bonds and $3.5 billion in matching funds. Mr. Brown is expected to propose in his state budget on Friday that some funds collected from carbon producers under the state’s cap-and-trade program be used to help pay for the railroad, state officials said. But it remains unclear how much more money is available, and how far it would go to cover the total $68 billion cost of the project.

“I don’t see them getting any more money from the federal government,” Mr. McCarthy said. “I don’t see $9 billion to build it from California taxpayers, and I don’t see them getting any private investment.”

Senator Mark DeSaulnier, a Democrat in the State Legislature who voted against the project, said the court ruling had underlined his concerns. “That’s the bottom line: Show me the money,” he said. “That is what the judge said, and that is what we promised the voters. And I never heard, sitting through many, many years in the Legislature, I never heard them show me the money in a way that I could feel comfortable. It has gotten worse.”

Mr. Richard, the rail authority chairman, said officials would present a revised financing plan in the next two weeks that would answer the concerns expressed in the ruling. He said the state would be able to make up the shortfall by bringing in private entities to run portions of the line once it was completed, based on the assumption that it would generate significant revenue.

“The rulings were significant, there’s no question about it,” Mr. Richard said. “But a lot of the dire predictions about how they would affect us are dramatically overblown. While we would have preferred not to have gone back to some of the issues the rulings raise, I do believe we can find a way to comply.”