The Northcoast Marine Mammal Center is reporting an influx of ailing California sea lions who are coming ashore with their bodies depleted by a potentially fatal disease called leptospirosis.
“Lepto is a bacterial infection that attacks the kidneys and can be fatal to these guys,” the nonprofit group says in a Facebook post shared on Wednesday.
The post is accompanied by photos of several sea lions in various stages of recovery. Treatment for this type of infection includes antibiotics, medications that protect against stomach ulcers and lots of hydration, including access to fresh drinking water as well as fluids delivered subcutaneously (under the skin).
This influx of local cases come amid a much larger epidemic of sick and dead sea lions washing ashore along the Northern California coast, with particular concentrations in Monterey, Santa Cruz, Mendocino and Sonoma counties, as reported by news outlets including the Press Democrat, the San Francisco Chronicle and CBS News.
That latter outlet highlights the fact that leptospirosis can also infect dogs. The Sausalito-based Marine Mammal Center issued an alert to dog owners last weekend, urging them to prevent their doggos from getting too close to any sea lions, especially those that appear lethargic and have their flippers tucked close to their bodies.
Leptospirosis can also infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which warns that without treatment, the infection can lead to “kidney damage, meningitis (inflammation of the membrane around the brain and spinal cord), liver failure, respiratory distress, and even death.”
The disease is treatable with antibiotics.
Outbreaks of leptospirosis in California’s sea lion population typically occur every four or five years, though this year isn’t considered one of those outbreak years, Marine Mammal Center Public Relations Manager Giancarlo Rulli told the Chronicle.
Roughly 10 sea lion carcasses have been reported near Bodega Bay with another 10 in Fort Bragg, though Rulli told the Chronicle that decomposition can make it difficult to identify an exact cause of death.
“The reasons for these periodic major outbreaks in sea lions is unknown,” the Marine Mammal Center says on its website, “however our UCLA collaborators believe that a combination of factors may be responsible, such as changes in herd immunity, sea surface temperatures and sea lion migration patterns.”
The organization also says that, even with treatment, roughly two-thirds of the animals that strand with acute leptospirosis do not survive.
The Northcoast Marine Mammal Center responds to hundreds of distressed animal reports annually along the coastline of Humboldt and Del Norte counties. Its rescue hotline is 707-951-4722.
The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District will welcome a new executive director at the end of this year.
During tonight’s meeting, the Harbor District Board of Commissioners is slated to approve an employment agreement with the district’s Deputy Executive Director Chris Mikkelsen. If approved, Mikkelsen would take the helm at the Harbor District on Dec. 1, one month before the departure of the district’s current Executive Director Larry Oetker.
Larry Oetker | Contributed
“I’ve worked closely with Chris for the last five years and he’s been a huge part of our success at the Harbor District,” Oetker told the Outpost in a phone interview this morning. “Chris came to the district with a great deal of knowledge surrounding property management and private sector development … he brings a great deal of can-do spirit and knowledge to the district. … That’s really what we need right now to get these projects built. We believe he’s the perfect person for the job.”
Oetker is set to retire on Dec. 31 after six years with the Harbor District. During his time in the position, Oetker has overseen a “complete revitalization of the Port of Humboldt Bay.”
“To make Humboldt Bay into a port of regional and national significance is really what we charted out to do,” he said. “The port has been completely underutilized, from an economic development standpoint, since the collapse of the timber industry. So, over the course of the last several years, the board and [I] have charted out this pathway to work with the County of Humboldt, the town of Samoa and people out on the peninsula to clean things up and bring in a new wastewater treatment plant.”
The Harbor District has also “mostly cleared” the former Samoa Pulp Mill property of contamination to make way for new development on the peninsula, Oetker said, including Nordic Aquafarms’ land-based fish farm and the Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Terminal Project. Both projects are expected to bring thousands of jobs to the Humboldt Bay region for years to come.
“We’ve been working with the Redwood Coast Energy Authority and the Schatz Energy Lab over the years and they really convinced the Harbor District that we should get involved with offshore wind,” Oetker said. “Based on those efforts, we came up with the offshore wind terminal and really worked closely with the Governor’s Office and the California Energy Commission with the belief that Humboldt Bay could be the main port on the West Coast to service the offshore wind industry.”
On top of that, in partnership with Cal Poly Humboldt, the Harbor District has helped bring in the world’s longest sub-sea fiber optic cable, stretching from Eureka to Singapore. The district has also worked with Cal Poly professors and the U.S. Geological Survey to bolster the region’s earthquake early warning systems.
When asked whether he had anything else to add about the future of the Harbor District or his upcoming retirement, Oetker said he has “never been more optimistic about the future of Humboldt County.”
###
The Harbor District Board of Commissioners will meet at 6 p.m. in the Woodley Island Marina Meeting Room, 601 Startare Drive, Eureka. Tonight’s agenda can be found here.
Sara Barielles during her hometown concert in Halvorsen Park in 2022 | File photo: Andrew Goff
###
If you missed your chance to see Sara Bareilles – Humboldt’s favorite Eureka-raised singer, songwriter and actress – on the stage during her hometown concert last year, you will soon have a chance to see her on the silver screen, with the filmed capture of her hit Broadway show Waitress: The Musical scheduled to come to movie theaters this December.
The film, which was captured in 2021 during the show’s remount at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre on Broadway, made its world premiere in June at the 2023 Tribeca Film Festival. It was recently announced that film company Bleecker Street has acquired the rights to the film and, in partnership with Fathom Events, will be releasing it nationwide on Dec. 7.
In case you are not aware, our girl Sara B. composed and wrote the music and lyrics for the show, including such well-known numbers as “She Used to Be Mine,” which helped make the musical a smashing success. In the 2021 remount (and the film) Bareilles also plays the lead role of Jenna Hunterson, a waitress and baker who dreams of escaping her small town and a loveless marriage.
Though we are not exactly sure what movie theaters will pick up the film, we can only assume that at least one local venue will screen the movie, so that Humboldt County residents will have another chance to celebrate our beloved Bareilles.
Watch the trailer for the filmed version of Waitress: The Musical below!
McKinleyville is the third largest community in Humboldt County, and as it grows, many wonder who will help manage its expansion—and whether or not incorporating it into the county’s eighth city is the answer.
A feasibility study would explore the practicality, or the pros and cons, of incorporation. Before embarking on such a study, a pre-initiation or pilot phase—which includes collecting data on potential boundaries, legal process and more—is needed.
In spring 2023, members of the McKinleyville Municipal Advisory Committee, which advises the Board of Supervisors on community issues in McKinleyville, invited Cal Poly Humboldt to help with this pre-initiation phase. As part of this phase, faculty and students from the University’s Geography, Business, and Economic Departments are collecting data on potential boundaries, legal process and more.
Importantly, the University’s ongoing research will not make a recommendation on whether or not to incorporate. Instead, the process arms decision makers with as much information as possible, explains Business professor Josh Zender.
This spring and summer Zender’s research team of graduate and undergraduate students compiled data—such as tax revenue, job growth, and public employee wages—of recently incorporated cities in California. They compared 57 cities with similar population sizes; gathered financial information for the two most comparable local cities, Arcata and Fortuna; and explored potential revenue sources such as property or sales taxes that could support municipal services, says Zender. They also gathered information on population trends and income levels to help measure the community’s economic health.
The research not only informs local stakeholders, but other communities throughout California who are considering whether or not to incorporate. The McKinleyville study was one step to expanding partnerships with rural communities in Northern California.
Engaging students in this process aligns with Cal Poly Humboldt’s commitment to providing a practical education, Zender explains. “This hands-on experience allows students to apply their classroom knowledge and analytical skills to a complex, real-life scenario,” he adds. “By conducting research, analyzing data, and thinking strategically, students gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with local governance and community development.”
In turn, students foster a sense of responsibility towards the local community, Zender adds. “As the students explored the potential incorporation of McKinleyville, they became invested in understanding the needs, aspirations, and concerns of the community members.”
The benefits are reciprocal for local leaders. By involving students, officials tap into the minds of future community leaders who present fresh perspectives
Importantly, the research effort—which is continuing into the fall term—comes at no cost to the local community, Zender says. “Cal Poly Humboldt faculty leveraged multiple internal grants and donations to help fund student research time on the project.”
“Utilizing the resources and expertise available within the University means the research project does not burden the community with additional expenses,” he says. “This demonstrates Cal Poly Humboldt’s dedication to supporting the local community’s growth and development.”
State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara speaks during a press conference with Los Angeles labor leaders and advocates in Commerce on Sept. 26, 2022. Photo by Alisha Jucevic for CalMatters
As a string of last-minute deals surfaced this week before tonight’s end of the legislative session, one highly anticipated proposal was not among them — a plan to keep insurance companies in California even as the financial risk from wildfires grows.
A key deadline passed Monday night without a bill, dooming the effort for the year, despite involvement from legislative leaders, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Negotiators struggled to find a balance between loosening regulations on an insurance system that has been pushed to the brink and maintaining protections for homeowners who could face much higher premiums to stabilize the industry, a politically fraught prospect.
The Legislature won’t return to Sacramento until January, leaving the issue unresolved for another fire season, though there will be hearings and potentially regulatory changes in the months ahead that could reframe the conversation.
“That’s the progress we’ve made here,” said Michael Soller, a spokesperson for Lara’s Department of Insurance. Fixing the home insurance market is now a priority across state government, he said, and there is urgency to get something done.
During an interview Tuesday night with Politico California, Newsom said a working group within his administration has focused on this “waving red flag issue” for months, in addition to the discussions with the Legislature.
“So we’ve gamed out some different strategies,” he said, declining to specify whether that might include calling a special legislative session or issuing an executive order this fall. “We can do a lot of things. And I’m very mindful. We can do all of that.”
A spokesperson for the governor said he would have more to announce as soon as next week.
Wildfires fueled a looming crisis in California’s insurance market for years. After disastrous fire seasons in 2017 and 2018 wiped out decades of profit, insurance companies began dropping tens of thousands of customers by refusing to renew their policies.
The industry says it has become too expensive to operate in California, blaming the high cost of rebuilding, growing risk from natural disasters and increasing expenses from buying “reinsurance,” or insurance for their losses, which state law prohibits them from passing onto customers.
The rippling consequences make it more difficult to build new homes, because of a lack of insurance options, as California tries to climb out of a severe housing shortage. It also imperils the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers limited insurance to homeowners who cannot secure a plan through a private insurer. The FAIR Plan is funded by a levy on insurance companies, so it faces insolvency as they leave the market and more customers are pushed into the program.
Negotiations for a legislative solution considered whether to allow companies to use forward-looking catastrophe models, rather than past losses, to set insurance rates, as they are already allowed to do for earthquakes; whether to let them factor reinsurance into their prices; how to set assessments for the FAIR Plan; how to speed up regulatory review of rate increase requests; and whether to require insurers to operate in communities with the biggest threat of wildfires.
“We thought we had a sensible, viable solution that we could continue to massage,” said Sen. Susan Rubio, a West Covina Democrat who leads the Senate Insurance Committee. “We were ready to act this year.”
With just a few weeks to maneuver at the jam-packed end of session, however, lawmakers and advocates say it was too late to reach an agreement that could earn widespread support.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of government relations for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, one of several insurance industry organizations, said there was broad consensus around incorporating catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs into rates, but a framework for FAIR Plan assessments was still unresolved. Many legislators also wanted to ensure the bill would offer as much benefit to consumers as it did to the industry, she added.
“Everybody was still trying to wrap their heads around hard solutions,” Ritter said. “We just ran out of time.”
An unexpected bomb dropped last Thursday when Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat who was involved in the deliberations because his district has been slammed by wildfire damage, publicly declared a “deal is dead,” days before the deadline.
Dodd told CalMatters this week that a secret recording of a building industry lobbyist describing efforts to jam a bill through the Legislature, leaked by the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, scared many of his colleagues, who worried that the plan would be a giveaway to insurance companies.
“Even without that, this is a very complicated issue,” Dodd said. “It was not helpful.”
Jamie Court, the president of Consumer Watchdog who recorded the lobbyist on a flight, said consumer groups like his did not have a seat at the table, which delegitimized the negotiations for some lawmakers. He encouraged the Legislature to consider homeowner-oriented solutions — such as giving people money to harden their homes against wildfires and then guaranteeing their access to insurance if they do — in a more transparent process next year.
“I think the secrecy was the main thing. No one saw it, even people in the building. And that’s no way to make policy,” Court said. “You can’t jam it down people’s throats.”
Assembly counterparts tried to keep the negotiations alive. The day after Dodd’s declaration, Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon, a Whittier Democrat who leads the Assembly Insurance Committee, and Jim Wood, a Healdsburg Democrat whose district has been battered by wildfires, jointly issued a statement signaling that discussions would continue into the final weekend before the end of session.
But no proposal ultimately surfaced by Monday night. Calderon and Wood both declined multiple interview requests.
“Our Caucus has been steadfast in putting consumers first, and I’m grateful for their dedication,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Hollister Democrat, said in a statement Tuesday announcing a series of public hearings this fall on the insurance system. “Our mission has always been to ensure homeowners and businesses across California can access and retain comprehensive insurance coverage.”
The Senate has no similar plans, though Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat, said in a statement, “We know we have to act to address insurance availability before we experience the market failure we’ve seen in Florida and elsewhere.”
The focus now shifts to Lara, who as insurance commissioner has broad regulatory authority to reshape California’s home insurance market without the Legislature.
Ritter of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association said a solution could largely be handled through regulations. Even if Lara acts quickly, however, it will take months more for companies to recalculate rates and get them approved by the insurance department, a process that the industry complains takes far too long.
“This is not an overnight fix,” Ritter said. “That was part of the heartache with the negotiations — there are no overnight fixes.”
Soller, the spokesperson for Lara, said a workshop at the end of September to explore catastrophe modeling — how it would affect the availability of insurance and future rates, how models would take into consideration safety investments — could inform a rulemaking process. The department is also working to modernize the FAIR Plan, he said, and to streamline reviews of rate filings.
“The causes are far more complex than often gets acknowledged,” Soller said. “The solutions are far more complex.”
The Legislature may still want to have its say as well. Dodd said lawmakers will keep working over the recess and could introduce a proposal next year, based on what Lara does this fall, that is ready to move right away.
“Once the insurance commissioner does what he’s going to do, that frames the whole issue and allows all sides to opine,” Dodd said.
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
A customer fuels a hydrogen car at a fueling station in Oakland. Photo by Semantha Norris, CalMatters
California lawmakers have reached a deal that would set aside 15% of funds from a billion-dollar climate program to help companies build fueling stations for hydrogen cars and trucks.
After months of debate, Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes, a Democrat from San Bernardino, said legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom agreed on a compromise for the funding. The 15% amounts to an estimated $106 million for new hydrogen fueling stations through July 2030, according to the California Hydrogen Coalition.
The state Senate and Assembly are expected to vote on the deal tonight as part of a bill that reauthorizes fees for the Clean Transportation Program, which funds infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles. The fees are paid by car owners — $2 car registration fees and $4 smog abatement fees.
The 15% carveout comes even though hardly anyone drives fuel cell vehicles powered by hydrogen: Californians own only about 12,000 of them, about 1% of the 1.1 million zero-emission vehicles on the road today.
Only two hydrogen models are currently being sold in dealerships, the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo, and many major automakers have said they plan to produce only battery-powered cars.
The new stations also would be available for medium- and heavy-duty trucks powered by hydrogen. But some experts say electric trucks are competing heavily for that segment, so the future market for hydrogen fueling stations is uncertain.
Teresa Cooke, executive director of the California Hydrogen Coalition, called the deal a win. The lobbying group for hydrogen supporters and suppliers — which includes Chevron, Shell and Toyota — originally sought nearly three times the amount they will now receive: They wanted about $300 million to create a statewide network of 1,000 fueling stations.
“It’s just the beginning, though, and now we have a lot more work to do with this technology and within this policy area,” Cooke said.
A Newsom spokesman said the governor supports the funding agreement. “This is a big deal in the fight against climate change — it’ll help build more electric vehicle chargers and hydrogen fueling stations, improve their accessibility and reliability, and cut air pollution,” said Alex Stack. “Governor Newsom looks forward to it reaching his desk.”
But Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley Law, told CalMatters that the set-aside is “largely a waste of money” for an “industry that has not proved itself after well over a decade of subsidy in California.”
Elkind added that while the state may have more hydrogen trucks in the future, there is “a much more immediate need to scale up chargers for electric trucks, which the state is really behind on deploying.”
“It’s too bad the Legislature had to make this compromise with hydrogen interests,” Elkind told CalMatters, “but that’s the nature of the sausage-making.”
“This is a big deal in the fight against climate change — it’ll help build more electric vehicle chargers and hydrogen fueling stations, improve their accessibility and reliability.” — Alex Stack, Governor’s Office
Since the program raises money through vehicle registration and other fees, the funding bill needs two-thirds of lawmakers’ votes to be approved: 54 out of 80 in the Assembly and 27 out of 40 in the Senate.
The program will provide about $1.2 billion for all zero-emission vehicle infrastructure through 2035. Funds have explicitly been set aside for hydrogen fueling stations since 2013, when lawmakers approved a 20% annual carveout for them.
But since then, electric vehicles have dominated the market for zero-emission cars and environmentalists say the set-aside for hydrogen technology should be dropped altogether so more money would go toward battery charging stations instead. Only 1,767 fuel cell cars that burn hydrogen have been sold in California this year. Last year’s sales declined 20%, although sales are up this summer. Californians already own more than 760,000 battery-powered electric cars, with sales increasing.
So far, the California Energy Commission has spent $202 million for hydrogen fueling stations. The state’s funding has helped create a network of 65 hydrogen fueling stations, 20 of them in Los Angeles County. Driving a hydrogen car outside of California is virtually impossible: One other public hydrogen fueling station exists in the U.S., and it’s in Hawaii.
The Energy Commission’s staff has warned lawmakers that there won’t be enough hydrogen cars on the roads to use new stations already allocated state funds.
Funding for hydrogen stations is “largely a waste of money” for an “industry that has not proved itself after well over a decade of subsidy in California.” — Ethan Elkind, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley Law
Stations will triple by 2027 — resulting in four times more than the amount needed to support even the “vehicle manufacturers’ best-case expected volume,” the commission said. They also warned that they haven’t received enough bids from hydrogen station developers to spend all the money the Legislature already has allocated.
The plan includes provisions that would make the funds available to other projects if there aren’t sufficient bids from hydrogen infrastructure developers.
Like battery-powered cars, hydrogen cars produce no emissions. But the electricity to run their motors uses compressed hydrogen gas, which the California Air Resources Board says is often derived from natural gas, a fossil fuel.
Major oil and gas companies see hydrogen as a potential way for their industry to remain viable in a decarbonized future. Some companies are exploring ways of making hydrogen a green energy source by splitting water using renewable-energy electrolyzers. But that technology remains much more costly than today’s process using fossil fuels.
Energy companies are also experimenting with capturing emissions from the natural gas process and then storing those emissions underground. But those carbon-capture techniques are not yet widespread.
Electric cars are reliant on energy from carbon-emitting power plants, but California is greening its grid. Under a state mandate, 100% of electricity must be renewable and carbon-free by 2045, with most coming from solar and wind.
Shell cancels plan to build hydrogen stations
The renewed funding comes after giant energy company Shell canceled a $40.8 million deal to build up to 50 hydrogen car refueling stations in California.
The company in July decided against requesting the state funds because the project was not economically viable, according to an email obtained by CalMatters through a public records request.
The email, signed by Shell employee Abhishek Banerjee, cited a number of factors for canceling the project, including difficulties getting permits and finding decarbonized hydrogen, construction costs and other factors.
The email also stated that “political and economic uncertainty in the initial stages of market deployment present a significant risk in further investment,” Banerjee wrote. “These barriers need to be overcome in order to enable future investment from Shell in this segment of the market.”
Only 1,767 fuel cell cars that burn hydrogen have been sold in California this year. Last year’s sales declined 20%.
A Shell spokesperson said the company remains “active in hydrogen in California and around the world,” adding that it is “vital to realize our net zero ambition and forming a future lower-carbon energy system.”
Reyes and Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat from Long Beach, initially tried bills that would have completely eliminated a hydrogen carveout. But they failed to get enough support from fellow Democrats so Reyes amended her bill in June to designate 10% of the program’s funds — $10 million a year through July 1, 2030 — to pay for hydrogen fueling stations. That move did not garner enough support from fellow Democrats who advocated for more hydrogen funding, while it was opposed by others who said it was too much.
The controversy in the Legislature threatened to jeopardize the future of the program, which is a key source of money for building new electric car charging stations. The program’s funding will expire next year if the Legislature doesn’t approve a plan this year.
The program, created in 2007, has invested nearly $1.6 billion in alternative fuels, charging stations and other clean vehicle technologies through March of this year. It’s considered an essential source of funding for California’s transition. The state estimates it will need nearly 1.2 million chargers for battery-powered cars by 2030; only about 88,000 are now installed.
###
CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
People attended a rally against tuition hikes, including students, instructors, and union members, at the California State University Chancellor’s office in Long Beach on July 11, 2023. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters.
The California State University system voted today to raise tuition 6% annually for the next five years, a decision that seemed destined when its leaders revealed in May that Cal State brings in far less revenue than it needs to educate its nearly half a million students.
The system’s board of trustees voted 15 to 5 to approve the hikes, choosing financial stability over the collective outcry of students and the faculty union that denounced the move.
The Cal State “is a dream engine” but approving tuition hikes is a “nightmare scenario,” said Cal State trustee Jose Antonio Vargas, who ultimately voted for the increases.
The first increase will kick in for all tuition-paying students next fall. For in-state undergraduates, that’ll be an uptick of $342, rising to $6,084 per year. After five years, annual undergraduate tuition will be $1,940 higher than it was in the 2023-24 school year.
Cal State is in a race to increase its graduation rates — especially among Black, Latino and Native American students — to make good on a promise that all major ethnic groups graduate at similar levels by 2025. That means more faculty, classes, tutors, mental health professionals and other academic expenses. Other expenses include more than $40 million annually to adopt changes to how the system tracks and resolves sexual discrimination cases after a series of high-profile incidents that led to top officials resigning. Two marquee reports published in July faulted Cal State’s handling of sexual misconduct violations. Also looming over the system is the risk of strikes as workers seek raises Cal State says it cannot afford.
Cal State expects to draw $148 million in new revenues in the first year of the tuition jump. Core to the plan is that one-third of those revenues will support student financial aid.
Those details were scant consolation to the students raging against the increases during yesterday’s meeting of the Cal State board of trustees. Across roughly 2.5 hours of designated time for public comments, an hour longer than trustees planned, students inveighed against the trustees for proposing the tuition hikes and reprimanded the trustees for slouching and looking at their phones during the students’ remarks. Some decried what they called the inherent racism of raising revenue through tuition hikes at a system that enrolls mostly students of color. A few admonished Cal State for not explaining how the hikes will affect students who pay full tuition. Others bitterly observed that the incoming system chancellor’s compensation will exceed $1 million.
“Students are supposed to be offered affordable higher education but instead we are slowly being stripped away of our education because the CSU fails to see us as students but instead sees us as their salary increases,” said Cassandra Garcia, the student body president at Sonoma State.
“You watch your students sleep in cars from the comfort of your gated communities,” another student from Cal State Dominguez Hills said.
“We are working numerous jobs just to be able to attend and you want to raise tuition,” said Courtland Briggs, a student from Cal State Channel Islands. “It’s pathetic. Y’all are pathetic.”
Shortly after the public comment session Tuesday, Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester tried to quell the nerves of trustees. “I know you are uncomfortable and I appreciate your discomfort,” she said. But Koester reiterated her comments in July that it’s never a good time to raise tuition and expecting students to ever support hikes is “fantasy.”
Among the trustees opposing the hikes were two prominent California lawmakers and likely gubernatorial hopefuls who sit on the board of trustees: Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who has announced she’s running for governor in 2026, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who’s been “seriously considering” jumping into the race.
Kounalakis said the trustees “headed into an action that you do not fully understand the consequences of,” she said today before the vote. Even if 60% of undergraduates don’t pay tuition, 184,000 students do. “I don’t see how we can do this without knowing what a $2,000 a year increase is going to mean for our students. We know anecdotally that a lot of students are going to drop out.” She wanted to postpone the vote until trustees learned more — and let the incoming chancellor who starts next month make the final call.
Trustee Lillian Kimbell pushed back, saying while she doesn’t know how the hike will affect the students paying tuition, she knows “100%” of students will experience a worse academic experience without the added revenue.
Twelve of the 20 trustees also shot down an effort by a student member, Diana Aguilar-Cruz, to limit the tuition hikes to four years rather than five. Doing this would have cost the system $126 million in lost revenue, said Koester. Still, the board is empowered to shorten the length of the hikes in the future.
Tuition hikes were on the table since May, when a task force concluded that Cal State needs at least $1.5 billion annually in new revenue to afford student services and bolster its academic offerings.
“This is a lot like climate change,” said Julia Lopez, a CSU trustee and co-chairperson of the working group, at the May trustees meeting. “If we don’t heed the warning signs right now, we’re going to find ourselves in a world of hurt down the line. So that’s what we’re trying to do, to get ahead of that.
Daniel Fanous, a third-year business major at CSU Bakersfield, pays full tuition, so the hike will affect him. Fanous said he covers the costs by working a full-time job seven days a week, and with support from his parents.
“I think that, over time, if they keep increasing it, a lot of people are going to see value elsewhere in life than just getting an education formally,” Fanous said.
Kathryn Flores, a third-year liberal studies major also at CSU Bakersfield, pays for her tuition both out-of-pocket and with student loans.
“I feel scared about it because I pay for my own college tuition,” she said. “My parents don’t pay for it.”
“If we don’t heed the warning signs right now, we’re going to find ourselves in a world of hurt down the line. So that’s what we’re trying to do, to get ahead of that.” — Julia Lopez, CSU trustee and co-chairperson of the working group
The tuition hikes were formally proposed in July and were met with instant opposition from the system’s faculty union, the California Faculty Association, which represents about half of Cal State’s roughly 60,000 workers, as well as a student group affiliated with the union.
“CFA opposes student tuition increases,” said Charles Toombs, the union’s president, at the July trustees meeting. He called on the system to prioritize the state support it already receives and advocate for more state funding. He also reiterated that Cal State should spend more of its money on student instruction and advancement.
The union reiterated its opposition to the hikes this week ahead of the trustees meeting with an email blast that said its members ”unequivocally oppose the 6% multi-year tuition increase.”
The system’s academic senate, which represents professors on academic matters, passed a resolution this month asking the Cal State trustees to delay its tuition-hike vote “until the impact of such a tuition increase on enrollments and diversity has been analyzed and reported upon.”
The resolution also criticized the trustees for formally discussing the tuition hike for the first time in July, when most students and professors aren’t in class.
It’s a point underscored by Dominic Quan Treseler, president of the systemwide Cal State Student Association. “You cannot tell me we wouldn’t have had twice as many protesters outside of those doors If this was not presented three weeks after school started,” he said during remarks to the board Tuesday.
While about 42% of undergraduates borrow to attend Cal State, a new report co-sponsored by the student association finds that almost two-thirds of those students come from families that earn less than $54,000.
Given those figures, Treseler said, the tuition hikes “will continuously suffocate and impede the success of our students and the system.” And because two-thirds of Black students borrow, he added, a tuition increase “will decimate the Black student population across our system.”
He noted that many students who want to avoid borrowing must work more than 20 hours a week to afford college expenses beyond tuition, such as housing, food and transportation. This tuition increase, he said, would require another three to four hours of work per week.
“I feel scared about it because I pay for my own college tuition. My parents don’t pay for it.” — Kathryn Flores, third-year liberal studies major at CSU Bakersfield
Treseler also expressed exasperation that student government advocates spent weeks persuading the trustees to change the tuition hike so that it’s not indefinite — as originally proposed in July — to one across five years. And while he has sympathy for the Cal State leaders’ obligations to respond to salary demands from its workers, he said the system’s top consideration should be “to offer an accessible and affordable road to success for every Californian.”
The faculty union is in heatednegotiations with Cal State over raises to lessen the sting inflation has had on workers’ purchasing power. The union wants 12% raises this year. Cal State said it can do that across three years or a one-year raise of 5%.
Other unions also want raises, but Cal State says it needs to spend $55 million annually for every 1% bump in pay for all employees. Money for those salary demands and the student services Cal State says it needs to have more students graduate are in direct competition this academic year, the system wrote. Teamsters Local 2010, a union that represents skilled workers such as electricians and plumbers, plans to ask its members to approve a strike in the coming weeks, its principal leader, Jason Roboniwitz, told CalMatters.
“And if they don’t start getting fair with us, the new chancellor could start her first month on the job with a 60,000-person strike, the biggest labor dispute in CSU history,” he said.
Outside the trustee meeting space yesterday, unionized workers chanted for better wages, at times with a full drum kit. But the system insists its budgets are already strained by its wage-increase promises.
“The CSU’s commitment to fair and competitive employee compensation requires budgetary tradeoffs, which could result in nearly all other operating budget priorities receiving only some or none of the new funding in 2023-24,” Cal State leaders wrote in documents ahead of today’s vote.
That sentiment was echoed byInterim Chancellor Koester during an Aug. 25 video address, in which she said current new salary commitments for staff and faculty were greater than the $227 million in new money Cal State got from the state budget this year.
“Her fearmongering threats are not only disrespectful towards the faculty and staff who serve the students in the CSU, but it is also disingenuous to claim that the CSU does not have the budget to properly compensate workers,” a September faculty union press release said.
But even with tuition increases that’ll kick in next year, Cal State’s revenues won’t be enough to handle all its future costs, system leaders argue. Cal State’s proposed budget for 2024-25 seeks$557 million in new revenue. About a quarter comes from new tuition hikes and $240 million from additional state funding Gov. Gavin Newsom promised the system as part of a five-year compact. But Cal State wants $145 million on top of that.
All that translates to just $220.7 million to fund 2024-25 compensation increases for all employees, Cal State says. That’s enough for 4% across-the-board raises for all staff, it says.
Pushed to increase raises beyond what it’s been offering, Cal State “will have fewer employees and we will have fewer seats for students in our classes,” Koester said Tuesday.
In one scenario, if Cal State agrees to 15% raises over three years, and the tuition hike didn’t happen, the system would have a half-billion-dollar budget hole. The new tuition revenue would still mean a deficit of $322 million, said Ryan Storm, a senior budget staffer for the system, today. Again, layoffs would be likely, he added.
The faculty union also points to the system’s reserves as another source of money. Is there money in the piggy bank? Cal State says no. The system reports having $2.5 billion overall in reserves and short-term investments and just under $800 million in cash reserves — money it squirrels away by spending less than it collects from tuition and state revenue. But system policy requires Cal State to maintain reserves equal to at least three months of its operating budget. The reserves it has now equals just 33 days of its annual budget.
“We haven’t solved the problem” of insufficient revenue with the tuition increases, said Steve Relyea, chief financial officer for Cal State, at a press event last week. “What we’ve done is narrowed the problem.”
###
Haydee Barahona, a fellow with the CalMatters College Journalism Network, contributed reporting for this story. CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
