Students seeking state financial aid now have an extra month to beat a California deadline — after lawmakers fast-tracked their response to a federal glitch that blocked thousands of current and aspiring undergraduates from completing the federal application necessary to get that state aid. The problem particularly affected students who are citizens but whose parents are not.

Assembly Bill 1887 cleared the Assembly unanimously last Tuesday and sailed through the Senate without opposition last Thursday — just before the Legislature began a weeklong recess.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, without surprise, signed it Monday. All told, the proposal went from bill to legislation in less than two weeks — a rapid pace by Sacramento standards.

Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat from Corona and chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, rushed the bill to give affected California students additional time to complete the federal application, known as the FAFSA, and access more than $3 billion in state aid. The new law moves the current deadline from April 2 to May 2 and goes into effect immediately.

“Clearly our students need our help,” said Cervantes during a bill hearing last week. “They need more time to complete the FAFSA, making their dreams of achieving higher education more affordable and accessible, and it’s our duty to ensure that we pass this legislation.”

California’s public colleges and universities urged lawmakers to extend the deadline in early March. Analysts for the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the governor’s Department of Finance endorsed the move. The bill emerged days later.

Cervantes wrote the bill after a technology mishap prevented U.S. citizens from completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid because their parents don’t have a Social Security number. It’s a problem that emerged this year with a revised application and has generated a high degree of worry among the higher education financial aid officers in California and nationally.

“The Legislature can highlight, double down on how unacceptable it is that certain U.S. citizens cannot submit a FAFSA, and I’m personally offended by it.”
— Gina Browne, senior official with the California Community Colleges system

The cause of the tech glitch: The federal online application wouldn’t allow those parents to enter their financial information. Without those details, a student can’t finalize their application — and can’t apply for state financial aid.

“The Legislature can highlight, double down on how unacceptable it is that certain U.S. citizens cannot submit a FAFSA,” said Gina Browne, a senior official with the California Community Colleges system, at a Senate hearing this month, “and I’m personally offended by it.”

The education department said it fixed some of the problems this month but cautioned there are other errors blocking some students from finishing their applications. Those include instances in which a parent’s — or spouse’s — name doesn’t totally match the forms both the parent and student must complete.

Thousands of students affected

The scale of the problem is hard to gauge. More than 100,000 California students last year submitted a federal aid application without their parents’ Social Security numbers. It’s not clear how many of those had parents who lacked a number or whether they chose to not share one with the government. Nationally, about 2% of applicants had at least one parent without a Social Security number in 2024, U.S. Department of Education officials said.

Estimates show that the number of California high school seniors submitting the FAFSA is well below levels compared to this point in time last year — a decline of 43% as of March 8, according to the nonprofit National College Attainment Network.

“I have to say this has been the most disruptive event in my 25-year career in financial aid.”
— Shawn Brick, director of financial aid at the University of California

For many onlookers, these barriers to the application are deeply ironic. The new FAFSA application was created to reduce the time it took students to apply for aid by cutting down on the number of questions. Another change allowed for more students to access the federal Pell grant, the country’s marquee financial aid tool for low-income families. But those changes not only left thousands of students unable to apply, it delayed by months when the federal government would send schools information necessary to create individual financial aid packages for their students.

“I have to say this has been the most disruptive event in my 25-year career in financial aid,” said Shawn Brick, director of financial aid at the University of California, at a legislative hearing last week.

The university plans to issue financial aid offers to students by mid-April, a month later than usual. Both the UC and California State University have extended their deadlines for students to commit to enrolling to their campuses by at least two weeks — May 15 — so that new undergraduates can compare their financial aid packages from the schools that admitted them.

“If any of these timelines slip, we will revisit the May 15 deadline,” Brick told lawmakers.

But pushing back that registration deadline has its own pitfalls, he added, as students face a compressed timeline for campus orientation and finding housing before fall term begins.

Remaining California and federal financial aid issues

Brick, of the UC, said last week that campuses have received about 5% of the student FAFSA information from the federal government they’d normally receive around this time, but in a glimmer of good news, the pace has quickened significantly.

Cal Poly Pomona, a Cal State, usually receives 43,000 student financial aid records from the federal government at this point in the process — but received “barely 20% of the records we would normally have,” said Jeanette Phillips, executive director of financial aid at the campus.

“We are not able to package financial aid for our students yet and can’t provide any guidance. We can’t alleviate their fears,” Phillips added. “They need to know their financial aid packages as soon as possible to make decisions about where to attend college or even if they can afford to attend college.”

But delaying the state deadline by a month this year may not address other issues with the federal application that could emerge in 2025, said Jake Brymner, a senior official with the California Student Aid Commission.

Parents without Social Security numbers now have to confirm their identities to complete the FAFSA, which may include uploading identifying documents. “Depending on the national political environment,” students “may have some additional concern about sharing family members’ information with a federal agency as they try to seek financial aid,” Brymner said.

Brymner’s implication is that families may worry if Donald Trump wins the presidential election this year. The Republican nominee reportedly plans a mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, replete with large camps, if he returns to the White House.

The commission has explored using another application for state financial aid — currently reserved for undocumented students — to bypass the federal technical glitches this year affecting U.S. citizens. The state doesn’t share information on that application with the federal government.

But that approach isn’t without its own issues. Students would still need to complete the FAFSA for federal aid, which can include more than $7,000 in annual grants plus access to lower-interest loans that come with various protections if students are unable to repay them down the line.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Legislators may be off for spring recess, but debates about their bills are still happening outside committee rooms. One spicy intra-party exchange between Democratic Assemblymembers focuses on a measure about retail theft — underscoring the difficult balance for lawmakers responding to public concerns about crime, while not over-policing historically targeted communities.

Los Angeles Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, vice chairperson of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, introduced Assembly Bill 1990, which would allow police officers to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanor shoplifting offenses (as in, items that total $950 or less) if officers have probable cause. Officers do not need to be present when the crime occurred.

Warrantless arrests when police don’t witness the crime aren’t new — officers can already arrest people on misdemeanor charges for domestic violence, violating a restraining order or for carrying a concealed gun at an airport.

The bill has bipartisan support with the backing of Assemblymember Juan Alanis, a Republican from Modesto and vice chairperson of the Public Safety Committee. In a statement, Carrillo said that by “increasing enforcement against suspected shoplifters, we are sending a clear message: we will not tolerate these acts that threaten our public safety and economic vitality.”

But Inglewood Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a fellow progressive caucus member, urged lawmakers to reject the bill, saying on social media that it was “bad for black and brown folks.”

In an emailed statement, McKinnor told CalMatters that AB 1990 is unnecessary and will promote mass incarceration: “We need our law enforcement partners to enforce the laws on the books, not discourage retailers from asking for help.”

A 2019 report from the Public Policy Institute of California found that African Americans in nearly all California counties have higher arrest rates than whites, and that misdemeanors have increased as a share of all arrests. (Latinos, however, were arrested at lower rates than whites in 26 out of the 58 counties.)

Carrillo pushed back, however, arguing that her bill “is committed to fairness, equity, and the protection of all individuals’ rights, regardless of race or background.”

In an email to CalMatters, Carrillo also said that McKinnor hasn’t met with her to talk about the measure, and that while she is “always open” to discuss policy with colleagues, “I don’t legislate via social media.”

Gardena Assemblymember Mike Gipson, who is one of the bill’s co-authors, also stood by Carrillo, arguing that “communities of color are hurting” because of retail theft and job loss. Gipson also posed a question to his (unspecified) colleague on social media: “What do you offer besides throwing rocks? What do you offer, I ask, as any form of a solution to a statewide problem?”

The debate is emblematic of the tightrope progressive lawmakers attempt to walk on public safety. And it’s an issue that Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, chairperson of the Public Safety Committee, will have to navigate as Carrillo’s bill heads to the committee.

While McCarty’s office said he was not available for comment yesterday, he spoke with CalMatters earlier this month about his approach to retail theft. The Sacramento Democrat said that lawmakers are “at the forefront” to address the issue, and that he aims to have a “balanced response” that does not “overcorrect” with unintended consequences.

McCarty, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Assemblymember Rick Zbur, chairperson of a select committee appointed by Rivas, have their own retail theft legislation.

The potential to “overcorrect” is particularly pertinent with retail theft, as the severity of a perceived crime wave remains up for debate (or as the Brookings Institution put it, “greatly exaggerated.”)

According to another Public Policy Institute of California study, shoplifting rates in California remained 8% below pre-pandemic levels in 2022. Last September, a handful of media outlets poked holes in Target’s rationale to close some of its locations due to crime. And in December, the National Retail Federation had to walk back its claim that half of the $94.5 billion merchandise loss the industry experienced in 2021 was due to organized retail theft (experts put the figure closer to 5%).

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

The coolest lady I know passed away on February 21, 2024 at the age of 83. Born JoAnn Hinkel on December 15, 1940 in Virginia, she passed peacefully in Crescent City. JoAnn was either loved by most the second they met her or disliked for her lack of a filter, saying things exactly as she thought, and never mincing words. She wore her “B*TCH” necklace proudly as she was not concerned what others thought of her.

Growing up in Stuarts Draft, Virginia wasn’t always easy for JoAnn but she was strong, independent, tough and hard-working. Her younger years took her to Florida, where she worked as a cocktail waitress at the famed Fountainebleau Miami Beach, was lead dancer at tasteful dance clubs, and was an original wedding crasher. Joann and her girlfriend attended many weddings, uninvited, to enjoy the food and entertainment. JoAnn was also a baton twirler, worked in a factory along with her mother using a loom to weave the velvet cloth that lined coffins, and was a beauty.

It was in Blackstone, Virginia that she caught the attentive eye of a military policeman stationed at the base near her home. It was one Lucky Gardella and she took a huge (and brave) leap of faith by getting on a bus and following him to California. As she hoped, but wasn’t 100% sure, he picked her up at the bus station and that was it.

In Eureka, JoAnn worked at Daly’s Department Store for a few years and made many friends. A lot would change in 1976 when Lucky and JoAnn bought their dream piece of land off Snow Camp Road, surrounded by the hills of Eastern Humboldt, and JoAnn became a true mountain woman. They established their piece of paradise, living off grid way before that was a thing, without the amenities of town. In the early days JoAnn would wake up really early and make Lucky’s lunch before he would take off on logging jobs all over and without a phone, would always anticipate his safe return. She would battle scorpions in the firewood, the occasional mountain lion, and wouldn’t hesitate to meet an unexpected visitor with a pistol in hand. We will all miss the sunny day visits under the apple tree listening to her stories and never ending supply of hysterical one-liners. God she was funny. Sitting around the cookie table and bonfire during Christmas tree season will be missed too. She loved handing out cookies, candy canes and cocoa to the children, and visiting with the families that would come get trees.

Ultimately, dementia took JoAnn from us way before we were ready to let her go but she leaves a lasting impression on all the friends and family she left behind. There is a little less sunshine on the mountain but the void is filled with memories of the fearless, strong, witty lady we knew.

JoAnn was preceded in death by her beloved mother, her father, two brothers and one sister. She is survived by her husband of 53 years, Lucky, son Randy, sister-in-law Trudy and nephew Michael.

JoAnn is terribly missed by Lucky, her mountain family, her truest, most special friend Mary Massei and Mary’s husband Joe, Butch & Sherry Reeves, who always made sure JoAnn had homemade goodies to satisfy her sweet tooth, and many other friends and family. She was cremated at Ayres Family Cremation and taken back home to be laid to rest alongside her many pets. May you rest in love, peace and laughter, JoAnn.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of JoAnn Gardella’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.

Jacob “Jake” Zukowski passed away peacefully in his sleep on March 5, 2024 at the age of 48. Jacob was born on November 16, 1975 in Pittsburgh, Penn.

He was the beloved son of the late Robert and Claudia (Cygnarowicz) and the adored brother of his late sister, Robin. Although preceded in death by his parents and sister, he forever carried cherished memories and great love for them for all of his remaining days. Jake is survived by his large and loving family — aunts, uncles and many cousins — all who love him dearly. And all whom Jacob dearly loved. He truly felt grateful and blessed to be a part of his family. Jake truly loved Kat, his most-beloved friend and soulmate. Jake loved Rubin (and Arlo and Otis) and all dogs and received great joy from their company. Jake was fortunate to be surrounded by dear friends. He cherished them and enjoyed having fun and spending time with each of them.

When you were with Jake, you were in a “judgment-free” zone! Jake accepted everyone and met them where they were. He offered kindness and love to all. Jake had a big loving, caring and giving heart and he appreciated everyone and everything. His welcoming smile and laughter reached out to so many. His sharp wit and sense of humor made him so much fun to be around.

Jake was a graduate of the Pittsburgh Culinary Institute and worked for many years as a chef. He created exquisite dishes that were enjoyed by folks on both the East and West coasts. For over five years Jake worked at the prestigious Ingomar Club at the Carson Mansion in Eureka, where his talents were appreciated by all who had the pleasure of tasting his dishes and where his kind and generous spirit and fun-loving wit were held dear by coworkers. He then chose to move on and merge his culinary skills with his love of the outdoors. Most recently, Jake was a chef at the Vermillion Valley Resort (VVR) located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Lakeshore, Calif. He was able to use his cooking skills while also helping people along their travels on the Pacific Coast Trail — a personal favorite destination for Jake.

Jake loved listening to music and camping. He enjoyed researching and collecting different camping equipment to help make his outings successful. He found solace and peace while spending time outdoors.

Jake was filled with passion, persistence and trust in God. His spirit was strong and courageous. He was filled with gratitude and appreciation. Never bitter or resentful, he forgave everyone. He truly loved. And he loved in a truly pure way. His light will forever shine and his love, ever pure, will remain with us forever.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Jake Zukowsi’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here.

###

After a protracted legal battle, five California Native American tribes, including the Blue Lake Rancheria, have been granted independence from state authority over their casino operations, giving them the right to regulate themselves, with oversight from the National Indian Gaming Commission.

[DISCLOSURE: The Blue Lake Rancheria is a minority owner of the Outpost’s parent company, Lost Coast Communications, Inc.]

This landmark arrangement stems from an Eastern District of California Court ruling, and subsequent Ninth Circuit appeal, in the case of Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California. The rulings triggered a mediation process required under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). And finally, with a “joint stipulation and order for dismissal” issued in late January, Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland approved new gaming procedures for the five tribes.

Ukiah-based attorney Lester Marston, who represented four of the five tribes in the case, described this as a significant victory for tribal authority.

“At this point, the State of California has no regulatory role and no say whatsoever about how the tribe conducts Class III gaming on its reservation,” Marston said when reached by phone last week. (Class III games include banked card games such as baccarat and blackjack as well as slot machines and casino games such as roulette, craps and keno.)

“This is a game changer,” Marston continued. “It not only has far-reaching implications across the state, it has far-reaching implications across the nation.”

Under the new federally approved gaming procedures, the five tribes can put an unlimited number of gaming machines in an unlimited number of casinos on their reservations, though economic conditions will likely dictate how many are actually deployed.

Perhaps more significant, according to Marston, are the financial implications. Typically, California tribes have to negotiate new gaming compact provisions with the state periodically. Each new compact comes with a fixed term, which has historically prevented tribes from acquiring 30-year bond financing from banks.

“The State of California allows every single government within the state — every city, every county, every special district, even the State of California itself — to engage in 30-year bond financing,” Marston said. “Why? Because we recognize that construction of infrastructure improvements doesn’t generate revenue, but yet they have to be done.”

Cities need functioning roads, sidewalks, water and sewer systems to attract business and serve residents, for example, and bonds are the means by which such infrastructure typically get financed.

“Tribes can’t [do that] because banks are only going to loan the tribes money that can be paid back within the term of their compact — because it’s the gaming revenue that the tribes are going to use to repay the loan,” Marston explained.

Under the new arrangement with the National Indian Gaming Commission, the five tribes involved now have a compact in perpetuity.

“No other tribe has this … ,” Marston said. “So it opens up a whole new financing avenue that’s available to them.”

Blue Lake Rancheria Chairman Jason Ramos said this case never would have gone to court if the state hadn’t tried to overstep its authority through the gaming compact negotiation process.

“I think it’s important for people to understand that the tribes really were trying to get a deal with the state,” he said. “We really made an effort.”

The root of the tribes’s dispute with the state concerned negotiations over a new gaming compact. In Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California, the tribes argued that California illegally tried to force them to negotiate provisions relating to matters that had no direct connection to playing games on the casino floor.

This included matters of family law, such as child support and spousal support orders, as well as environmental regulations and liability for personal injuries or property damage that occur anywhere on casino grounds, including restaurants and parking lots. 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act strictly limits the topics states may include in tribal-state Class III compacts to those directly related to the operation of gaming activities. While the state tried to draw such connections, the Ninth Circuit Court found that the proposed provisions  were “far outside the bounds of permissible negotiation” under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act and struck them down.

A press release issued by Marston’s law office put it this way: “The Court held that the imposition of State law unrelated to gaming was a bad faith attempt to use the compacting process as subterfuge for expanding State jurisdiction in Indian country.”

The tribes also argued that various fees demanded by the state amounted to an illegal tax under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because, in negotiations, the state failed to offer the tribes a meaningful concession in exchange.

Marston likened this to extortion.

“The state put a gun to the tribe’s head and said, ‘You’ve got a choice: You can either pay up the money — let us rob you — or you can not have Class III gaming,” he said.

Again, the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the tribes, ruling in their favor and sending the matter into court-imposed mediation.

Ramos said this process works just like baseball arbitration: Each side presents its last best offer to an arbitrator — in this case, retired federal district court judge Raul Ramirez — who then must determine which of the two competing offers best comport with federal law.

“And you don’t mix them up,” Ramos said. “You either pick one or the other.”

Last March, the judge selected the tribes’s offer. Two months later, according to the Press-Democrat, the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta signaled its refusal to consent to his decision, automatically sending the gaming compact matter directly to the Secretary of the Interior.

In consultation with the tribes, Halaand was then required to prescribe procedures that are consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the relevant provisions of state law and the proposed compact selected by the mediator.

Ramos said the decision in the Chicken Ranch case “reset expectations about what were proper subjects of negotiation [under] the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.”

He added that the Blue Lake Rancheria doesn’t currently have any plans to add more casino games or secure bonds to finance any new facilities, such as a hotel expansion or new casino facilities.

“In the current state of this county’s economy? I don’t think anybody does,” Ramos said.

But the new secretarial procedures will give the tribe more long-term stability.

“What it says is that our business, as it is now, can continue to operate,” Ramos said. “Our team members, including those union team members, their jobs are safe. Moving forward, we can continue business as usual, and if we have an opportunity in the future, if it’s a financial or economic reality, [then] we have an opportunity to do some new things.”

Asked if he was worried that things might have gone the other way — that the courts or the mediator might have upheld the state’s compact rather than the tribes’s — Ramos replied, “I didn’t sleep for three years, man.”

Looking back, he said the fight was worth the risk.

“We were not willing to make those those concessions to the state, especially in light that they had no meaningful concessions on their side … ,” he continued. “We were really forced to take this route, and I’m glad we did. And I’m glad we prevailed, but it was not certain that we would. But we didn’t give up and we didn’t we didn’t give ground when it came to those areas of our tribal sovereignty.”

Why does this case have such large implications for tribes throughout California and beyond? Marston said that the precedent established in the Chicken Ranch case can now be cited during current and future gaming compact negotiations.

“Right now, for example, the tribes in Arizona and New Mexico have provisions in their compact that require them to pay a percentage of their slot revenue to the state,” he said. “In Arizona it’s 8 percent; in New Mexico and 16 percent.”

Unlike in California, where voter-approved Proposition 1A (1999) waived the state’s 11th Amendment immunities, tribes in Arizona and New Mexico can’t sue over gaming compact provisions.

“But now those tribes have a remedy,” Marston said. “What’s the remedy? Well, now they can stop making their payments to the state. The state is then left with a choice: They can either do nothing and the tribes get to keep the money, or they can initiate the dispute resolution provisions in those compacts in Arizona and New Mexico, and they can sue the tribe.”

Once those states go to court voluntarily, they waive their 11th Amendment immunity.

“If New Mexico or Arizona goes into federal court to sue the tribe [that stopped paying percentages of its slot revenues] … the tribes then can assert as a defense the Chicken Ranch decision and argue that it’s an illegal tax, because the states never gave the tribe a meaningful concession in exchange for the payment of the tax.”

Eventually, through such proceedings, more tribes across the country could join the five from this case in becoming self-governing when it comes to casino gaming operations.

Here in California, two other groups of tribes are in their own federal court processes, according to Ramos, with about half a dozen tribes headed for mediation. The Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria is among the tribes currently in negotiations, and Ramos said negotiators are pointing to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Chicken Ranch case, along with the newly approved secretarial procedures, and asking the state to adhere to the precedents they established.

Marston said his law firm is currently representing the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, based in Amador County, in a lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom’s office. The suit argues that certain provisions of the tribe’s 2016 compact “are invalid and unenforceable as a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria.”

Marston’s firm is also representing the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (Madera County) in negotiations over a new gaming compact.

“And surprisingly enough,” Marston said, “the Governor has taken the exact same position with Picayune that he took with the five tribes in their negotiations. So I’m not optimistic that we’ll reach an agreement, and if we don’t, Picayune will be filing suit against the government for that.”

The Outpost emailed a number of questions to Governor Newsom’s office. Among them, when the Eastern District Court ruled that the state had been negotiating in bad faith, why didn’t Newsom’s office simply go back to the negotiating table to pursue a new agreement, rather than filing an appeal, thereby opening itself up to litigation?

In response, a spokesperson replied via email that the office has no comment beyond an explanatory paragraph describing the chain of events in terms that imply inevitability:

After the Ninth Circuit ruled against the state in July 2022 in Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California, 42 F.4th 1024, the state and tribes proceeded through the remedial process required under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That process concluded when the U.S. Department of the Interior issued secretarial procedures for the tribes on January 31, 2024. Once the remedial process had finished, there was no further action for the court to take and the parties agreed to dismiss the case.

Marston said he was surprised that the state never petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Ninth District ruling.

But now, that ship has sailed. When it comes to regulating gaming for these five tribes, the State of California is out forever, he said. “They will never, ever be allowed again to have any say in what these five tribes do regarding gaming on their reservation.”

###

DOCUMENT: Class III Gaming Secretarial Procedures for the Blue Lake Rancheria

PREVIOUSLY:

• At a Two-Day Conference in Eureka This Week, North Coast Tribes Advocate for ‘Meaningful Engagement’ With Offshore Wind Developers, Federal Regulators
• Yurok Tribal Council Votes to Formally Oppose Floating Offshore Wind Energy Projects Along the North Coast
• Bear River Tribal Council Joins Yurok in Formally Opposing Offshore Wind Development Along the North Coast

###

Press release from the Trinidad Rancheria:

On March 19, 2024, the Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria (Trinidad Rancheria) Tribal Council approved a resolution opposing offshore wind, expressing support for the National Congress of American Indian’s (NCAI) resolution requesting a moratorium on offshore wind energy development, and urging the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to halt all scoping and permitting for offshore wind projects. The Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria is a federally recognized tribe located on the Pacific coast of Northern California in Humboldt County. The Trinidad Rancheria has ancestral ties to the Yurok, Wiyot, Tolowa, Chetco, Karuk and Hupa peoples.

While they share similar cultural and historical traditions, each tribe has a distinct heritage. The Rancheria is within the aboriginal territory of the Yurok peoples with an ancestral territory which includes the Pacific coastline from Damnation Creek, south to Little River and is located in an area of great cultural significance to the Trinidad Rancheria and other local tribes. The Trinidad Rancheria is situated on a bluff overlooking the Trinidad Bay, an area of Special Biological Significance and the Tribe has a longstanding commitment to the stewardship of its ancestral coastal and marine environments. The Tribe is inextricably connected to the marine environment and continues to be involved in several marine initiatives to foster responsible and sustainable stewardship, healthy and diverse ecosystems, as well as preserve and protect tribal rights within our marine waters.

The Trinidad Rancheria stands in solidarity with other local Tribes in opposition of offshore wind projects until there is shared tribal jurisdictional authority over, and tribal management of, offshore renewable energy activities. There is insufficient scientific research on the adverse impacts associated with the floating wind turbines and platforms, the effects to marine life from the subsea transmission cables and the overland transmission lines, and there has been minimal effort to consult with Tribes on this project that would have massive impacts on our ancestral lands and waters. We have significant concerns regarding the impact to view shed from sacred cultural sites and the impacts to the cultural landscape overall. Additionally, this project is not benefiting the local community and instead asks us yet again, to sacrifice our cultural and marine resources for the benefit of communities far from home.

The Trinidad Rancheria Tribal Council strongly urges the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to halt all scoping and permitting for offshore wind projects until completion of a comprehensive and transparent procedure adequately protecting Trinidad Rancheria environmental and sovereign interests is developed and implemented.

Trinidad Rancheria Tribal Council Resolution TC-24-07 attached for reference.

###

After receiving $14 million in funding through the California Jobs First initiative, Redwood Region Resilient Inclusive Sustainable Economy (RISE) – a relatively new community coalition –  is developing a vision to bring more good, sustainable jobs to our region. 

Leoni Fohr, a communications associate for the California Center for Rural Policy (CCRP) at Cal Poly Humboldt, told the Outpost that RISE was formed in 2021 after the California Jobs First initiative (SB 162, formerly known as the Community Economic Resilience Fund) was signed into law with the intent of supporting statewide economic recovery from the distress of COVID-19. It took a while for things to really get going, Fohr said, and the coalition started meeting regularly in February 2023. 

“This past year has been a lot of building up the program, conducting outreach and education and getting folks involved,” Fohr said in a recent phone interview. “We have close to 1,000 members in our community and a lot of representatives from community-based organizations.” 

Those members are made up of representatives from local tribes, education, environmental justice groups, labor unions and government bodies, collaborating to create a 10-year vision to create more jobs and foster a sustainable economy in Humboldt, Del Norte, Lake and Mendocino counties and tribal lands. The California Center for Rural Policy acts as part of the coalition’s “convening team,” which is in charge of bringing together the various groups and organizations, and also includes representatives from the Arcata Economic Development Corporation, North Coast Opportunities and True North Organizing Network. 

Currently RISE’s vision is still in the planning phase, Fohr said, and it’s working to identify which projects and programs the coalition wants to support. RISE has been accepting project proposals, and Fohr said that the $14 million funding will go toward continuing the selection process and prepping the chosen projects to ready them for additional grant funding. Though the $14 million will not go far enough to actually launch the selected proposals, Fohr said, it will allow RISE to get the projects “shovel-ready,” so that they are eligible for competitive grants to keep the projects going. 

“It takes a lot for a project to move from planning to implementation,” Fohr said. “That’s where a lot of projects get stuck – there is funding for the planning, but not enough funding to keep them running. At the end of August 2024, there’s $26 $260 million becoming available in competitive funding. We’re hoping to get the projects ready to apply for that funding.” 

RISE is selecting a wide range of proposals, Fohr said, that would support job creation or workforce development, including developing youth job-training centers, healthcare training and scholarship programs for training firefighters. RISE is particularly interested in supporting programs that offer creative solutions to more than one economic problem, Fohr said. For example, one project RISE is looking to support would work with local healthcare partners to establish an art therapy program and train local artists to lead the classes. This would address our area’s lack of mental healthcare, while also creating jobs for out-of-work artists. 

If you have a great idea for a project or program that will stimulate our regional economic development, RISE is still accepting proposals via its Project Inventory Intake Form. RISE will continue accepting submissions on an ongoing basis, but the deadline to be considered for implementation funding is March 28. 

And if you don’t have a proposal to submit, but are still interested in being involved in RISE’s decisions or just want to learn more about the coalition, you can attend one of RISE’s monthly Collaborative Meetings, held over Zoom on the last Thursday of each month. That means the next meeting is coming right up – Thursday, March 28, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. You can join by following this link. 

RISE is meant to be a community-led coalition, so Fohr encourages everyone to get involved in whatever way they can to help RISE hear directly from members of the community on their needs. 

“It’s a fairly new approach to really working with communities…to hear from them what they need,” Fohr said. “This is so valuable on a state level, because it’s hard to picture what it’s like living in a rural area. If RISE does a good job we can show our area’s unique difficulties, but also show our resilience.”

###

CORRECTION: This article has been changed from its original version to reflect that $260 million, not $26 million, will be available in competitive funding. That’s a big difference! It has also be changed to reflect that CCRP is a part of Cal Poly Humboldt.