With deep love and sorrow, we announce the passing of Patricia Ann Thornburgh of Arcata, who entered eternal rest on May 8, 2025, surrounded by the love of her family.

Patricia Ann Williams was born on January 14, 1937, in Seattle, Washington, to Ray Joseph Williams and Martha Elvira Lundquist. She attended Ballard High School and later graduated from Whitworth College, a Presbyterian college in Spokane, Washington. She earned her Master’s of Social Work from the University of Washington in 1962. Pat initially worked as a social worker, dedicating herself to helping others even before she began raising her own family.

On December 18, 1960, Pat married her beloved husband, the late Dale Alden Thornburgh. Together, they built a life filled with love, purpose, and service to others. In 1962, they moved from Seattle to Arcata where Dale worked as Professor of Forestry at Humboldt State University. After stepping away from her early career to raise their children, Pat returned to her calling through her work with Head Start, where she spent over 20 years enriching the lives of children and families. She especially valued the deep, personal connections she made during this time. One such bond led to Bouathong Inthanou, a student from one of the families she served, becoming part of their home and hearts as a foster daughter.

Pat was a devoted mother to her three sons — Mark (deceased), Larry, and Joel — and a loving grandmother to Dandy, Charles, Julia, Scott, Sara, Sean, Marlie, Avery, and Erin. She also held deep affection and respect for her daughters-in-law: Claire, Mary Ann and Vickie.

She found joy in the simple beauty of the world around her. Pat loved bird watching and often took peaceful walks at the Arcata Marsh, where she found solace and inspiration in nature. But above all, her greatest joy was spending time with her grandchildren, whose presence brought light and laughter into her life.

The family would like to extend heartfelt thanks to the many caregivers who were not only a tremendous help in Pat’s later life but became extended family to her — especially Debra, Terri, Jami, Faith and Lily. A special thank you goes to Dr. Connie Basch, Visiting Angels, Frye’s Care Home of Eureka, and Hospice of Humboldt for their compassionate and dedicated care.

In honor of Pat’s wishes, a private family graveside service will be held at Greenwood Cemetery in Arcata and memorial donations may be made to Whitworth College in lieu of flowers — www.whitworth.edu.

Known for her quiet strength, compassion, and unwavering commitment to family and community, Pat touched the lives of many. Her grace, wisdom, and generous spirit will be remembered always.

She leaves behind a legacy of kindness and love that will continue to live on through her family and all those who were fortunate enough to know her.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Pat Thornburgh’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

A couple of weeks ago, a whole bunch of states and a wind power industry group filed suit against the Trump administration, seeking to overturn an executive order banning new offshore wind power development. (See coverage from Reuters here; the suit itself can be found here.)

This week, at the states’ request, a large group of environmental organizations — including the Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center — filed an amicus curae brief in support of the suit. The argue that Trump’s executive order was “arbitary and unlawful,” that wind power is a “critical and growing” source of green energy, and that offshore wind’s supposed threat to wildlife — specifically whales and birds — are “unexplained and unsubstantiated.”

“We believe that Trump’s order is hostile to the truth—that wind energy, when responsibly developed, can be a significant public good—and inappropriately weaponizes environmental laws in order to further the interests of fossil fuel companies,” writes EPIC’s Tom Wheeler in an email announcing the amicus brief. (Wheeler is a host of the Econews Report, which runs on the Outpost most Saturdays.)

Read the entire amicus brief at this link. A press release from the environmental coalition can be found below.

###

A group of 10 environmental groups filed a legal brief today in support of an effort by states and industry to overturn the Trump administration’s government-wide ban on new wind energy projects.
The amicus brief argues the court should grant the states’ and industry’s request and lift the halt on approval of wind permits immediately. Wind power benefits public health, communities, economic development, and the climate, it says.

The administration’s ban cuts “off all permitting for wind projects of all types pending completion of a vague review that has no clear purpose, timeline, or avenue for public participation,” the groups say in the filing. “By obstructing responsible wind energy development, the Wind Directive and its implementation undermine efforts to meet state climate and energy targets, while increasing reliance on fossil fuels, an outcome that carries well-documented risks to wildlife, public health, and the environment.”

Last week, attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts challenging President Trump’s presidential memorandum and its implementation, which has put a halt to federal approvals for wind projects. The Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE NY), a trade association that promotes clean, renewable electricity, asked to intervene in that suit last week.

On Monday, the states and ACE NY asked the court to act immediately and tell the administration to consider and process wind permits while the case plays out.

Today, the environmental groups—NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates NY (represented by Earthjustice), Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Protection Information Center, National Wildlife Federation, New York League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, and the Southern Environmental Law Center—filed a friend of the court brief supporting the states and ACE NY’s requests for a preliminary injunction so that permitting for wind projects would restart.

The environmental groups’ new filing notes that it “strains credulity” for the federal government to claim that it is concerned about the environmental impact of wind power. “The Agencies simultaneously are seeking to gut the federal wildlife protections that permitting processes are intended to safeguard, and to fast-track non-wind projects that kill and harm species,” the brief says.

Wind provides more than 10 percent of U.S. power, employing 131,000 in all 50 states. The top four wind-producing states are Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Offshore wind power is poised to take off on the East Coast, with three projects already in operation and others under construction.

QUOTES:

“The administration’s ban on all wind permits is unexplained, inconsistent, and incoherent. It hamstrings a critical industry when we need it most,” said Julia Forgie, senior attorney at NRDC. “States, industry groups, and environmental groups are united in telling the court that the wind ban is clearly unlawful and should be lifted immediately.”

“Halting responsible development of wind power will harm our nation’s efforts to diversify our energy supply and maintain a reliable electric grid,”said Gudrun Thompson, senior attorney and leader of SELC’s Energy Program. “The Trump administration’s unlawful ban on wind permitting impedes the growth of this clean, abundant, domestic energy resource, and threatens jobs and economic development in the Southeast, where more than 100 companies produce components for the wind industry.”

“The Trump administration’s illegal ban on wind energy is an attack on America’s clean energy future. This ban stifles domestic energy production, kills well-paying jobs, and forces Americans to pay higher energy prices,” said Josh Berman, senior attorney at the Sierra Club. “At a time when Americans are already facing economic instability–manufactured by Trump’s chaotic and erratic administration—we need clean, affordable renewable wind energy more than ever. We urge the court to act swiftly and strike down this unlawful ban.”

“The Trump administration is slamming the brakes on wind projects that communities are counting on for affordable electricity, local investment, and clean air,” said Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel, U.S. Clean Energy at Environmental Defense Fund. “States are tapping into our nation’s vast supplies of wind because it makes good economic sense, and it’s healthier than relying on polluting oil and gas. This unlawful permitting ban is now holding people back from cheaper electricity and cleaner air. That’s why this group of states, industry, and environmental organizations are urging the court to put an end to it.”

“California’s offshore wind could provide clean, renewable power for millions of homes if responsibly developed. This administration threatens our future by weaponizing environmental laws and pushing false and misleading claims about the environmental impacts of offshore wind,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center.

“Denying climate change doesn’t fix climate change. It defies logic that the federal government would put the brakes on a reliable, clean, safe energy technology. We need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and promote clean energy technologies including offshore wind so that America can breathe cleaner air, create green jobs, fight climate change, and diversify our energy sources. Our nation’s first offshore wind farm, the South Fork Wind Farm, is working extremely well and we should be building on this success,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

“Wind power is a clean, reliable resource, with projects undergoing a well-established, science-based permitting process including robust environmental review and public input to ensure projects avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wildlife and ecosystems. This legal challenge demonstrates a strong consensus that wind energy is an essential part of American energy independence, capable of delivering major environmental and public health benefits by reducing carbon emissions and improving air and water quality. The administration’s attacks on wind disregard both the legal framework and the scientific evidence behind these projects, threatening a clean, affordable, and reliable energy future,” said Jim Murphy, senior director of legal advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation.

“This sweeping and senseless wind energy ban is a direct assault on our clean energy progress,” said Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters. “New York and other forward-looking states have invested heavily in wind power because it delivers cleaner air, lower emissions, good-paying jobs, and local economic benefits. Blocking these projects undermines public health and a clean energy future. The court must step in and allow this essential industry to move forward.”

“Wind plays a critical role in powering our lives, supporting a reliable and affordable electricity grid, and delivering big health and climate benefits,” said Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for Climate & Energy at Earthjustice. “But instead of supporting the responsible development of wind power, the Trump administration is stopping wind in its tracks, while declaring a fake energy emergency, fast-tracking fossil fuel development, and dismantling environmental protections. Halting all wind project approvals indefinitely without any reasoned explanation is both arbitrary and unlawful.”

“This isn’t about permits, it’s about power. New York wants to generate it for growth. Trump wants to seize it for himself. By blocking offshore wind and the Empire Wind I project, he’s sabotaging union jobs, jeopardizing billions in investment, and selling New Yorkers out to fossil fuel donors. We joined this brief because New Yorkers don’t scare easy—and we’re sending a message: you can’t pull the plug on the future we’re building,” said Vanessa Fajans-Turner, executive director of Environmental Advocates NY.

“While President Trump pushes outdated fossil fuels, states are fighting for the affordable, clean energy we need—energy that slashes bills, cuts pollution, and is produced right here at home,” said Kate Sinding Daly, Conservation Law Foundation Senior Vice President for Law and Policy. “Wind energy already comprises a large part of our electricity mix, supporting 131,000 American jobs. The responsible deployment of wind power is not only possible, but necessary—for meeting our climate goals, ensuring cleaner air and water, and keeping up with rising electricity demand in a reliable and affordable way. This lawsuit is a powerful reminder of how state governments can stand up when the federal government fails to act in our best interest.”

PREVIOUSLY

• BREAKING: Sun Valley Floral Farms Issues Layoff Notices to Entire Workforce in Arcata and Oxnard
• In Letter to Industry Colleagues, Sun Valley Floral Farms CEO Explains the Factors That Led to the Company’s Demise
• PLANT DISMANTLED: They’ll Be Auctioning Off All Sun Valley Floral Farms’ Infrastructure Next Month

The former Sun Valley property in Arcata failed to sell at auction today after Sun Valley Floral Farms defaulted on their deed of trust from CitiBank.

Located in the Arcata Bottoms on Upper Bay Road, the 123-acre property was owned by Sun Valley Floral Farms, once one of the nation’s largest producers of flower bulbs. Sun Valley operated in Humboldt County for 65 years until its sudden bankruptcy in May of 2024, caused by a laundry list of factors including rising insurance prices and energy costs, the demise of one of its biggest customers, and the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency deporting many of its undocumented laborers. During its peak season, Sun Valley employed over 700 people on its Arcata farm.

There were no bidders at the auction, held on the steps of Eureka’s courthouse this morning. Ownership will revert back to the bank.

[Ed. note: Local musician, social worker and activist Elle Penner’s vocal group Harmonic Howl has been a fixture at the recent protests in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse. In the video op-ed below, she shares a bit of her personal history and political evolution, while also reflecting on the strength of Humboldt grassroots activism she’s witnessed these past few months.]

Press release from the City of Eureka:

The City of Eureka will provide up to three hours of public comment during the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, 2025, regarding Item H.1 — Bill No. 1040-C.S., the proposed Camping Ordinance.

The City Council has heard over eight hours of public testimony on this item, beginning with the Special Meeting held on January 14, 2025, and continuing over multiple meetings, including over four hours of comment during the March 18, 2025 session. To ensure the Council can continue its legislative responsibilities while providing additional opportunities for community input, the Council will allocate 180 minutes (three hours) specifically for public comment on this item at the upcoming meeting.

Individual speaking times will be determined based on the number of speakers who indicate that they wish to address the Council, divided proportionally into the total available time. As permitted under the California Brown Act, the Presiding Officer/Mayor may adjust the total comment period to ensure sufficient time remains to address other business on the Council’s agenda.

Community members are strongly encouraged to submit written comments in advance by emailing cityclerk@eurekaca.gov. All written comments will be provided to the Council and entered into the public record.

For additional meeting information and agendas, visit: https://www.eurekaca.gov

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

House Republicans moved to cut off artificial intelligence regulation by the states before it can take root, advancing legislation in Congress that, in California, would make it unlawful to enforce more than 20 laws passed by the Legislature and signed into law last year.

The moratorium, bundled in to a sweeping budget reconciliation bill this week, also threatens 30 bills the California Legislature is currently considering to regulate artificial intelligence, including one that would require reporting when an insurance company uses AI to deny health care and another that would require the makers of AI to evaluate how the tech performs before it’s used to decide on jobs, health care, or housing.

The California Privacy Protection Agency sent a letter to Congress Monday that says the moratorium “could rob millions of Americans of rights they already enjoy” and threatens critical privacy protections approved by California voters in 2020, such as the right to opt out of business use of automated decisionmaking technology and transparency about how their personal information is used.

If passed, the law would stop legislative efforts in the works nationwide. Lawmakers from 45 states are or have considered nearly 600 draft bills to regulate artificial intelligence this year, according to the Transparency Coalition, a group that tracks AI policy efforts by state lawmakers and supports legislation to regulate the technology.

The measure was introduced by Congressman Brett Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky and chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee who said the legislation is necessary to resolve a patchwork of state regulation. On Wednesday, members of Congress in that House committee voted 30-24 along party lines to approve the budget reconciliation bill that includes the moratorium on state AI regulation. It will now advance to the House floor and potentially the Senate, where some observers say it faces an uphill battle against rules that limit policy changes in budget proposals.

As written, the moratorium would lift after 10 years. But it would have plenty of impact in the meantime, said Ben Winters, an attorney for the Consumer Federation of America. In California, he thinks the legislation could halt efforts by the Privacy Protection Agency to regulate automated decisionmaking, prevent enforcement of laws to protect voters from deepfakes and short circuit draft bills aimed at protecting people from discrimination and landlords who use AI to raise rent prices.

“If this bill were to pass, California couldn’t protect its citizens from exactly those harms,” he said.

Companies and lobbyists are attempting to use Washington D.C. to undermine California’s legislative AI leadership, said state Sen. Josh Becker, a Democrat from Menlo Park, in the heart of Silicon Valley. Becker has authored or coauthored a number of bills regulating AI, including one signed into law that requires AI makers provide tools to consumers so they know when generative AI is in use and another that seeks to prevent health insurance companies from unfairly using AI to deny people health care.

“If this bill were to pass, California couldn’t protect its citizens from exactly those harms.”
— Ben Winters, attorney for the Consumer Federation of America, on AI harms like deepfakes, discrimination and algorithmic price setting.

“This is an effort to tell people when something was created by AI, and so if this gets delayed for a year or two or 10 it’s going to have really negative consequences,” he said.

What’s unclear, he said, is exactly what regulation is covered by the moratorium. Would it, for example, wipe out privacy protections that Californians enjoy, and which were targeted by Congressional legislation last year? And how would it affect a bill Becker authored that gives people a way to quickly delete personal information collected by data brokers, set to go into effect next January?

“If they preempt that, it’s really negative for the country,” he said. “We’re [California] big enough that we can influence the country on our own, but if they preempt what we’re doing then it’s up to the federal government who has been unable to act on these issues.”

Momentum for AI harms — and, possibly, for curbs on regulation

For all the worry, the moratorium is dead on arrival if it reaches the U.S. Senate, said Gus Rossi, director of public policy and strategy at Omidyar Network, which funds public interest AI projects and tracks AI regulation.

That’s because a federal regulation known as the Byrd rule requires that budget reconciliation bills be related to fiscal matters, and, in Rossi’s reading at least, a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation doesn’t fit that definition. But Rossi still thinks people should take it seriously, arguing that it’s an attempt by House Republicans to establish a marker on what they think should be the approach to AI legislation, and a sign of things to come.

“The action is in the states, not D.C.,” he said. “That’s why some people in D.C. are trying to stop states.. particularly California, who’s leading the pack.”

If this bill or a similar one in the future passes, Rossi expects it would get challenged in court and put a chilling effect on efforts to regulate AI by state lawmakers.

It’s unclear whether it’s legal for the federal government to make a blanket moratorium on state regulation, said Winters, who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice during the Biden administration.

He agrees that the Byrd rule means the bill is unlikely to pass if it reaches the U.S. Senate, though Republicans may connect it to a $500 million plan to invest in AI for federal agencies and argue that it’s essential to limit state regulation in order to carry out certain budget provisions.

The House bill makes exceptions for states to continue enforcing some laws related to AI, such as laws that enable more use of AI or that are intended to improve government efficiency. It’s reasonable to interpret that exception to mean states like California could continue enforcing privacy law if this bill passed, said Amba Kak, codirector of The AI Now Institute, a research and equitable AI advocacy organization. But that’s risky.

“We can’t count on the fact that courts will see it this way, especially in the context of an otherwise sweeping moratorium with the clear intention to clamp down on AI-related enforcement,” she said.

A House AI task force spent years discussing areas of bipartisan agreement and possible bills to pass to regulate AI, New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in a hearing about the moratorium, but Congress was unable to pass any of that legislation. During that time, people committed suicide from their interactions with chatbots and kids and teens were harmed by falsely generated sexually exploitative deepfakes, and so states decided to act to do things like force AI chatbots to protect the private information of people seeking mental health care in Utah and require chatbots include a protocol for when someone expresses the desire to commit self harm in New York.

“All of these protections are protections that Congress refuses to take up, refuses, and so states are taking up this responsibility,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Let states protect people. A moratorium is a deeply dangerous idea at this moment.”

“All of these protections are protections that Congress refuses to take up.”
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic congresswoman, on state AI regulations

Congresswoman Doris Matsui, a Democrat from the Sacramento area, echoed Ocasio-Cortez at the hearing, saying, “We can’t shoot ourselves in the foot by stopping the good work states have done and will continue to do.”

Supporters of the moratorium identify different sorts of harm if it doesn’t pass. A patchwork of state regulations of AI “is the fastest way to secure Chinese dominance of AI,” said Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California and co-chair of the House AI task force. He supports a moratorium and preemption of state law by federal law, and if Congress fails to act, he said the people it will hurt most are entrepreneurs who can’t afford to follow regulatory regimes passed by different states.

“The most destructive thing is if there’s fear out there that every few years as the winds of political fortune shift, the rules governing the use of AI completely change,” he said during the hearing.

Broader pushback against AI regulation

The proposed moratorium is in line with efforts to prevent regulation of AI by President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, who say such regulations will stifle innovation. A White House plan to promote growth of the AI industry and likely reduce regulation is due out by this summer. Companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, and big businesses who use AI have lobbied in Sacramento and Washington D.C. to prevent regulation of the technology.

Guthrie’s proposal comes a few days after Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, pushed for “light touch” AI regulation to ensure the United States maintains AI supremacy over other nations and to, in Cruz’s words, “prevent needless state over-regulation.”

The intent of Guthrie’s bill, Winters believes, is to send a signal to tech companies and open up the door to possible future legislation if the budget reconciliation bill fails to pass. It’s a trend consistent with Senator Cruz’s statement last week and efforts to remove red tape for data center projects on federal land.

“I’d describe this as.. explicitly saying we are supporting the AI companies more than the American people,” he said. “We’re seeing an explicit turn toward a deregulatory state.”

Federal lawmakers have steadily increased the number of bills they propose related to AI in recent years, but they have passed relatively few of them into law, according to the AI Index report. Out of more 220 bills proposed last year, only four passed.

By contrast, state lawmakers passed more than 130 bills to regulate AI last year. California passed 22 bills last year, more than any other state, and attempted to harmonize its rules with the European Union’s AI Act and other U.S. states. The 2024 State of State Tech Policy report found a 163% increase in tech policy proposals by state lawmakers last year compared to 2023. That trend is driven by one-party control in the vast majority of state houses across the country.

The adage that states are the laboratories of democracy is still true, said ​​Scott Brennen, a coauthor of the State of State Tech Policy report, so shutting down their ability to see what they can cover and try out different approaches doesn’t seem like a good idea, and could undercut the federal government’s ability to make better policy. Since AI is getting integrated into an ever-wider range of tools and platforms, Guthrie’s moratorium appears to apply widely, he added, including to social media platforms, ongoing efforts by states to protect children online, and data privacy protections that address automated decision making.

“I don’t necessarily think state regulation of AI is always the best course of action, there are definitely areas like consumer data protection where it would be better if the federal government took the lead, but the federal government isn’t taking the lead,” he said.

###

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

###

A controversial $125 million deal California struck with Google last year to prop up the state’s struggling journalism industry is already on track to shrink — before any of the money has been delivered to news outlets.

The deal, announced last August, committed California and Google to each put tens of millions of dollars into a fund to be distributed to local news outlets over five years. In exchange, lawmakers scrapped two ambitious proposals that sought to force the search engine behemoth and its tech counterparts to pay outlets for using their published content.

But Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday proposed to slash the state’s initial commitment to the journalism fund by two-thirds.

Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer wrote in an email that the administration is seeking to reduce the state’s first-year payment of $30 million to $10 million solely because of “fewer resources than projected in the January budget.” The cut is part of Newsom’s May budget proposal, in which he’s seeking to close an estimated $12 billion shortfall for the 2025-2026 fiscal year that begins in July.

The proposal to reduce the state’s share of the funding outraged local news advocates and proponents of requiring tech platforms to pay journalism outlets for their content — who already called last year’s deal insufficient. It raises questions about Google’s commitment to paying its share of the matching funds, and the overall status of the agreement which was announced in August but appears to have made little progress toward becoming reality.

There were no signed term sheets in Google’s handshake deal with the state and with lawmakers last year — only public promises.

“It’s extremely disappointing,” said Steven Waldman, president of the journalism advocacy group Rebuild Local News. “It was already too small and they’ve walked in the wrong direction from it at a time when the collapse of community news in California continues … Pink slime and rumor and misinformation is flooding into the vacuum so time is of the essence to try to turn this around. Instead, the effort is shrinking.”

A draft of the deal released last year suggested UC Berkeley would administer the funding program; the university has since declined to do so and the state has not announced a new administrator. As a result, Google also does not appear to have made its first-year payment of $15 million toward the fund, said Steven Waldman, president of the journalism advocacy group Rebuild Local News.

The deal did not include strict timelines, but proponents said they aimed to “front-load” much of the money in the first year, which they believed could garner more private contributions along the way.

Deal struck after billions in lobbying from Google

Neither Newsom’s office nor Google responded to inquiries. The Computer and Communications Industry Association, a lobbying group that last year was largely bankrolled by Google to oppose the news bills, declined to comment. Google’s payments to influence state lawmakers surged to almost $11 million from July through September last year when the bills were under consideration – 90 times more than it has ever spent on lobbying in California over the same period of time.

A spokesperson for Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who negotiated the deal last year in exchange for abandoning her bill that would have required platforms such as Google and Meta to either pay a fee or negotiate with news outlets for using their news content, said there would be “more information to share on this in the coming days.”

Wicks, in a statement, did not address the proposal to cut state funding. Instead the Oakland Democrat thanked Newsom for “for making an essential public investment that strengthens journalism” and described the funding as a “down payment, combined with those of private and philanthropic partners.”

After the first-year payments, Google and the state both were to put $10 million a year into the fund for four more years.

The company also agreed to continue paying $10 million a year in existing grants to newsrooms — money it had threatened to withhold if the legislation passed. And it planned to put $17.5 million into an unspecified artificial intelligence program that had given some journalists and their union representatives anxiety over job losses.

Now, Waldman is worried the state’s reduction in funding could prompt the company to do the same. As part of the deal, Google specified it would only pay into the journalism fund as a match to state dollars, said former Sen. Steve Glazer, the author of the other bill that was scrapped.

“They did not want a precedent to be set in California that could be easily replicated in other states, so they insisted upon a state match,” he said. “The fact that the governor is proposing to renege on (part of the deal) is a cherry on top for Google and it allows them to reduce their contribution if they desire.”

Glazer’s bill would have imposed a fee on major tech platforms to provide news outlets a tax credit to employ local journalists. The measure, legislative staff estimated, would have raised $500 million a year. Wick’s bill requiring the platforms to negotiate payments to news outlets was modeled on similar programs in Canada and Australia, but the political headwinds were tough in the tech companies’ home state.

Lawmakers pursued both proposals to try to stem the decline of the news industry in California.

Following a nationwide trend, media companies have hemorrhaged jobs over the past two decades as advertisers fled print media for the internet and technological advancements reshaped how readers consume news. The state has lost one-third of its newspapers since 2005 in a trend experts say worsens civic engagement, polarization and misinformation.

To try to keep their readers, publications increasingly rely on social media and online search. Google controls the lion’s share of search in a way the U.S. Justice Department and one federal judge have said violates antitrust law.