Anneisha Williams figures she has paid several hundred dollars in overdraft fees over the years, so when her last bank recently refused to refund about $500 a hacker stole from her checking account, Williams decided she was done with banks.

Williams, 38, works full-time at a Jack-in-the-box in the Los Angeles area and is an in-home care provider. She also is raising six children; she doesn’t have time to hassle with a bank she no longer trusts, she said.

“They told me they couldn’t refund my money, basically, that it was just a loss,” she said. “It was just highway robbery.”

Now Williams does banking online through a financial tech company. It doesn’t charge her monthly fees and offers her free overdraft protection. But state law says such companies aren’t banks and can’t call themselves that.

Williams has joined California’s “unbanked” — some 7% of Californians who don’t have checking or savings accounts at traditional banks.

Another 18% have bank accounts but end up using higher-fee financial services, such as payday lenders or check-cashing businesses. They are considered the “underbanked,” according to banking experts.

In total, 1 in 4 Californians lacks full access to banks, studies say. Many are low-income and minorities who pay high fees to access their cash.

Lawmakers say they’re preparing to help. The state Legislature passed a law in 2021 creating a commission to explore a public banking option called CalAccount. Its report is due to the Legislature July 1, 2024.

CalAccount would be a state-run public bank, but the state would likely involve another bank or financial partner. It would offer such services as free checking, overdraft protection, ATM cards and savings accounts to people who are underserved by banks, state officials said.

Assemblymember Miguel Santiago, a Democrat from Los Angeles who authored the law, said it would bring back into the economy people pushed out by high financial fees.

Financial options

“We can’t create a stable economy when financially underserved households spend an average of 10% of their take-home pay in fees and interest, just to access their own money and pay bills,” Santiago said. “Creating a public option for banking and closing the racial wealth gap isn’t only a moral imperative, but it also creates greater financial security for all of our communities.”

CalAccounts would offer “a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account,” says the California Public Banking Option Act. People could access their accounts in person at post offices, rather than at bank branches.

California has one of the highest concentrations of unbanked families in the nation, according to the Federal Reserve. Workers earning less than $15 per hour make up 81% of unbanked individuals in the state, a study said.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which regulates banks, says to be unbanked means no one in a household has a checking or savings account at a traditional bank or credit union. Underbanked means they have a bank account but still lack access to many financial services, such as credit cards and loans.

Not enough cash

Critics of CalAccounts say there aren’t enough of the unbanked or underbanked to justify a state-run financial alternative. Many Californians don’t lack access to bank services, they said; they just lack cash.

“This is a critical distinction that must be made; individuals who utilize payday lenders and other high-cost loan products do so because they have inadequate cash flow, not because they lack access to banking services,” a coalition of business and banking groups wrote to legislators.

Other experts voiced misgivings about public banking.

James Hamilton, an economics professor at University of California San Diego, said where a public bank gets its money to lend and how transparent it is will be important. A public banking system could mask lending practices that deserve public oversight, he said.

“Expenditures of taxpayer dollars should be approved by the legislature and open to public review,” he said. “If the bank’s loans were funded entirely with legislatively approved allocations of tax revenue, I would have no problem with it. But if they are funded by borrowing, this can mask the losses and procrastinate handing the ultimate bill to taxpayers.

“That is how the federal student loan program became a trillion-dollar public loss. California should not repeat the same mistake.”

Banking on minorities

Being unbanked greatly impacts people of color and low-income families. Nearly 1 in 2 Black and Latino households in California is unbanked or underbanked, state officials said.

One reason: low-income consumers are often burdened by bank fees that others with higher balances don’t have to pay. Black households are almost 2 times more likely to pay overdraft fees than white households, and Latino households are 1.4 times more likely, says a study by the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank.

In 2021, 11% of U.S. adults with bank accounts paid at least one overdraft fee, but 20% of Black and 14% of Latino account holders paid such fees, according to the Federal Reserve.

Banks charge overdraft fees — typically around $35 — for each transaction. Some banks charge a single customer multiple times for the same error and charge them each day their account remains overdrawn, the Roosevelt Institute said.

Frequent overdrafters generate about half of banking companies’ checking account profits, according to a 2020 study by the global consulting firm Oliver Wyman. Overdraft-related fees generated $17 billion for banks in 2019, and among the 25 largest banks, about 9% of annual pre-tax profits.

Due to public pressure, some banks in 2021 reduced fees. But by third quarter the fees were back up and banks collected $11 billion that year, the Roosevelt Institute said.

Add that to what unbanked customers pay check cashers and payday lenders and Californians are losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees, Santiago said.

Customer service test

Julia, a 61-year-old McDonald’s employee in Richmond, Calif., said her bank takes a $12 fee from her account every month her balance is below $1,500.

“That $12 is important,’ said Julia, who did not disclose her last name because she fears deportation as an undocumented immigrant. “For a poor person, every single dollar is important. We have to pay for lights, gas, trash service, and buy food. You have to work two or three jobs just to get by.”

Online banking through a financial tech company, like Williams did, is an option. But those companies aren’t registered banks. They often partner with banks to offer their services. And some have attracted hundreds of complaints.

If the state operates a public bank, people could get their paychecks, public assistance benefits and tax returns directly deposited, proponents say.

This option may be years away, however. After bank industry lobbying, lawmakers amended the public banking bill. Instead of creating a bank, the bill created a Blue Ribbon commission to conduct a market analysis to determine if it’s feasible.

So far that commission has held few meetings. It is just beginning the process of hiring a market analysis consultant.

Meanwhile state and federal governments should more actively regulate banking and protect consumers, wrote Emily DiVito, author of The Roosevelt Institute’s report.

To back that up, her study includes research purporting to show how staff at some California banks treat minority or low-income customers.

Researchers posed as potential customers and went to 80 bank branches, requesting information about opening accounts. Bank staff turned away minority canvassers nearly a third of the time, DeVito wrote, but turned away white canvassers once out of 23 visits.

The staff gave various reasons: customers needed to make appointments, staff was too busy or at lunch, or relevant information about bank accounts was on the bank’s website.

###

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

It is with great sorrow that we had to say goodbye to our wonderful mother and grandmother, Darcy DeMello. On the morning of Febuary 20, 2023, Darcy passed peacefully with her two daughters by her side.

Darcy was born on August 18, 1955 to Ken and Lorraine Boe in Missoula, Montana. She was the youngest of four siblings. Darcy grew up being the baby of the family, but that never stopped her from being tenacious and fighting for what she wanted. This made her passionate and stubborn about all things that she loved and cared about. Following in her mother’s footsteps, she was the driving force of the family. Darcy was caring, loving, giving and definitely in charge. Watching her two older brothers playing basketball in the gym from a young age stayed with Darcy through her entire life. She attributed her love of the sport to her two older brothers.

Darcy graduated from Arcata High in 1973. During her senior year she met the love of her life, Raymond DeMello. They were married for 35 happy years before he was taken to soon from our family. She became the matriarch of our family, allowing us to heal and move on in a strong and humble way, honoring their legacy as a family.

Darcy earned her nursing degree in 1975 from College of the Redwoods, and since graduating she had served our community as a registered nurse.

She is survived by her two daughters and son-in-laws, Maren and Nate Goodman, and Melissa and Dan Kaiser. Darcy also has four grandchildren. Payton and Julian Goodman, and Marayah and Madelyn Kaiser. She is also survived by her two brothers and sister-in-laws Owen and Donna Boe, and Steve and Denise Boe, and their families, and her in-laws Joe and June DeMello. Along with numerous family members from both the Boe and DeMello families.

Darcy was an avid traveler and loved planning her next adventure. From the early days with her family, backpacking, camping, river/lake trips, road-tripping to skiing the slopes, she shared a love of the outdoors. Later in life, she discovered her passion of international travel, and explored numerous places. Whether she was traveling with her friends or family, she always looked forward to each and evey trip. While planning her trip itinerary was exciting in itself, her favorite part was planning her wardrobe to match her destination. But her all-time favorite place was spending time on Trinity Lake with her family.

Darcy spent over 45 years in the medical field as a registered nurse and was respected and loved by her peers and colleagues. She was a beautiful, brilliant, funny, extraordinary nurse. She was always a steady guiding light, and brought serenity and tranquility to any and all situations. Those were close to Darcy said she taught by example and lead with courage, and was always fair and supportive. She made life long friends whom she talked about and cherished always. She spent 30 plus years at Mad River Community Hospital and finished her career in Administration at St. Joseph Hospital. Helping and caring for our community was a true passion for Darcy. She loved what she did, and took pride in being a nurse.

Darcy was married to Ray DeMello for 35 years before he passed away in 2011. They were a fun-loving couple and knew how to have a good time. They always put family and friends first and will both be sorely missed by anyone fortunate enough to know either or both of them. Darcy was a fierce lover of her family, and they were always her top priority. She passed along to her two daughters the importance of keeping loved ones close. She was extremely proud of Maren and Melissa, but her four grandkids were the loves of her life and brought a new passion and excitement. She cherished every moment she had with them, and felt extremely lucky to be their grandmother. No matter what the grandkids were doing or participating in, “Grams” was right there cheering them on and encouraging them to be the best they can be.

Darcy will be missed and always remembered but never forgotten. Our family and community will never be the same, but life will go on with her in our hearts. Darcy left a legacy of memories, traditions, and family values that will be passed on through generations.

We will be having a celebration of life at Baywood Country Club on April 1 at 4 p.m. Any and all are invited to share a memory, a story, a hug, or just your presence and a good glass of wine. If anyone has a picture of our Mom having a good time that you would like to share with us, we ask that you bring a copy. We will have a display at the celebration for photos to be added.

In lieu of flowers please donate to the Breast and GYN Health project. You can do this by going to the website bghp.org and clicking “Donate Now.”

###

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

HUMBOLDT TODAY: Hope you enjoyed your relatively dry Wednesday — your reprieve ends now. Sheriff Honsal declares a state of emergency in hopes of securing outside funding. Plus, we have the results of Tuesday’s local election. (Yes, there was one.) Those stories and more in today’s newscast with John Kennedy O’Connor.

FURTHER READING: 

• Humboldt County Cannabis Farmers Blast ‘Misleading’ Ballot Initiative That Would Impose New Restrictions on Cultivators; Supervisors Form an Ad Hoc Committee to Work on Alternatives
• Sheriff Declares Local State of Emergency in Response to Winter Storms
• Big Town Hall on Eureka Transportation and Infrastructure at the Jefferson Center Tonight
• Newsom’s Climate Budget Would Slash Funds That Protect Coast
• New Cost Estimate for High-Speed Rail Puts California Bullet Train $100 Billion in the Red

HUMBOLDT TODAY can be viewed on LoCO’s homepage each night starting at 6 p.m.

Want to LISTEN to HUMBOLDT TODAY? Subscribe to the podcast version here.

###

Dozens of impassioned cannabis farmers and allied community members spoke out during Tuesday’s Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting to urge the board to shoot down an initiative that would restrict commercial cannabis cultivation across the county.

The Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI), if approved by voters, would effectively prohibit new cannabis-growing operations across the county and impose a host of stringent rules that would forbid farms larger than 10,000 square feet, limit cultivation permits to one per person/corporation or per parcel, ban mixed-light and indoor grows, among other impacts.

The Board of Supervisors reluctantly agreed to place the initiative on the March 2024 ballot last fall. At that time, staff agreed to provide a thorough analysis of the initiative and bring it back to the board for discussion at a date uncertain. 

On Tuesday, the board took its first look at staff’s analysis and explored the possibility of creating an ad hoc committee that would work with the initiative’s proponents to either modify existing county rules or find an alternative to the ballot measure.

The analysis, prepared by Planning and Building Department staff, was presented to the board during Tuesday’s meeting. It emphasized that the existing county regulations “are intended to encourage a well-regulated cannabis industry in Humboldt County.” While the initiative claims it would protect the county’s residents and natural resources from harm caused by industrial cannabis cultivation, staff argue that it would “have the opposite effect by making compliance so difficult that the legal market is rendered not viable in Humboldt County.”

Planning and Building Director John Ford highlighted numerous issues and “unintended consequences” outlined in the initiative. For example, the initiative forbids the approval of a cannabis cultivation permit that would result in multiple active permits.

Ford | Screenshot

“What is meant in this particular case by no approval?” Ford asked, noting that the initiative would require permits to be renewed annually. “If you’re talking about an approval, a renewal is an approval. So is the intent here that – in the context of renewal and application – a site can’t have more than one active permit and an applicant can’t have more than one active permit? In all honesty, it’s not clear what’s intended by this. It’s an unclear provision within the initiative and it makes it extremely difficult to implement and extremely problematic.”

Under the worst-case scenario, Ford said cultivators with multiple permits would have to give up all but one, adding that it would be “very difficult for [the permit holder] to completely change their business model.” Under the best-case scenario, the requirement would prevent the issuance of multiple permits to a single entity.

Ford added that the initiative would be extremely difficult to enforce – both financially and physically – because of the additional staff that would be needed to inspect “all public complaints” and conduct annual inspections required for permit renewal. He also expressed concern that the increased regulations would push cultivators back into the illegal cannabis trade.

“[Permit holders] could not install new water tanks, they could not install the solar facilities; a lot of potential environmental enhancements would not be able to be installed [under this initiative],” Ford said. “We believe that the county has been successful in allowing people to step into the legal market. Humboldt County has traditionally not been a legal market, and we can only speculate in terms of what people would do if their primary legal form of cultivation were to be taken away.”

He added that the vast majority of permit holders affected by the increased regulations would be people who were farming before legalization and stepped up to come into compliance with county and state rules. 

“They came out and declared themselves to be cannabis farmers,” he said. “They gave us their names, their addresses, their phone numbers and they applied for permits and they’ve gone through the process. They’ve spent thousands and thousands of dollars to improve their propert[ies], to address conditions that the county has placed on them, and this [initiative] would put them in a place where potentially they couldn’t further modify their site.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn noted that the initiative stemmed from a neighborhood dispute over a 40,000-square-foot cannabis growing operation in Kneeland back in the fall of 2021. The group of disgruntled residents claimed the grow op’s hoop houses would be plainly visible from some of their homes along Barry Ridge. The group arranged a meeting with county officials at Kneeland Elementary School and, ultimately, the permit holder agreed to reduce the size of the project to 10,000 square feet.

However, the residents felt the county ought to do more to protect residents and natural resources from large-scale cultivation. The group embarked on a vigorous signature-gathering effort and last year the initiative qualified for the March 2024 ballot.

Bohn pointed to several other instances in which the county staff worked with an applicant or permit holder to address concerns brought forth by neighboring residents, noting that it’s “usually to the benefit of the neighbor more so than the applicant.” He questioned whether the formation of an ad hoc committee would make any difference.

“The system has worked up ‘til now, up ‘til we got this,” he said. “One of the items on [the agenda] is about forming an ad hoc committee to work with them. … I’m hearing that they don’t want to discuss [it]. They have their signatures [and] it’s going to the ballot. So, before we spend a lot of time putting [together] an ad hoc committee that has nowhere to go, I’m just wondering [if that is] an actuality?”

A little later in the discussion, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell read an email that was sent the day before from one of the organizers of the initiative that confirmed the group’s intent to place the initiative on the ballot. “The initiative was agreed by 7,000-plus informed Humboldt County citizens and had more than the legal required number of signatures, as determined by the Humboldt County Elections Office, and therefore should propose for voters consideration on March 2024,” the email stated.

Had he been aware of the email, Ford said he would have amended his presentation to include a recommendation for the board “to look at our legal alternatives …  if they’ve already stated that they’re not willing to have a discussion to try to reach a common mind and common understanding of what’s best for the entire county.”

Bohn reiterated the initiative is “probably unenforceable” because of the staff time required. He added that if the initiative were to pass, “it just doesn’t put a nail in the coffin, it digs the hole, names the cemetery and puts everybody in it in a mass grave.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo asked how the county would process new permit applications “given that we would have met and exceeded the threshold outlined” in the initiative.

“Basically, what it allows is that any application that was complete as of the date of the filing could be finished,” Ford explained. “The permit cap … was 900 and something and we’re at 1,027 right now. … So we could not take in applications for new cultivation.”

Bushnell asked if farmers would be able to reduce the size of their cultivation sites under the ordinance. “Currently, multitudes of farms are considering reduction,” she said. “What does that look like with this initiative?” 

Ford said a reduction would not require a permit modification; they would just have to contact the county. “We would then respond to the state inquiry to see if they were in good standing and in compliance based on the size that they’ve declared to us,” he said. “I don’t see that as being a complication.”

Before moving ahead to public comment, Bohn reiterated his concerns surrounding the creation of an ad hoc committee and asked to hear from the writers of the initiative. “If they say, ‘No, we’re gonna roll our dice and go right to the voters,’ that changes everything here,” he said. “If they’re not going to collaborate and we’re not going to get anywhere, make a motion as a county to come out against this and let it go to where it’s going. … But I would love to hear actualities that the writers of this initiative would even consider.”

County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes stepped in to note that the county is “not able to take a position of opposition or support” during the meeting. “Any county efforts will be to educate the public on impacts [or] pros and cons,” she said. “It’s important that we don’t represent that we will be opposing or supporting any particular initiative.”

Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone asked if any of the initiative’s writers were willing to speak to the board’s concerns. No one spoke up in the audience and there were already several hands raised in the virtual queue but there was no way to immediately identify the callers, so the board went ahead to public comment.

A few commenters, including Wendy Kornburg, owner and operator of Sunnabis Farms in Southern Humboldt County, were embarrassed to admit that they had signed the petition to put the initiative on the ballot without fully understanding what it would do.

“I was absolutely misled,” Kornburg said. “I was told that [it] would help small farmers. It would help us, you know, fund our road infrastructure, which of course is not true. … [The] initiative was given to people to sign without full disclosure of what it was. I also normally read things entirely and I did not this time. I will never do that again.”

Nicole Riggs, an affiliate researcher with the Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, referred to the initiative as “the Karen Initiative,” and called it “as misleading as it is dangerous.”

“The [farms] that the proponents [of the initiative] say they care about are the small permitted farmers,” she said. “Permitted farmers follow the rules. They comply with water storage. They pay fees. They have inspections. … The [staff] report has stated that 90 percent of active farms have no violations. Farmers are motivated to comply, but ask yourself: Will this initiative cause the cost of compliance to be greater than the cost of non-compliance?”

Matt Kurth, the owner of Humboldt Cannabis Tours, predicted that the initiative “would destroy cannabis tourism within one year” because it requires multiple permits. 

“Anyone who has a tourism permit – of which we only have three right now – as soon as they have to renew their permit they will be forced to choose between their cannabis permit [and] their tourism permit, which means they’ll lose their tourism permit. … If we want to do cannabis tourism at all in the future here in Humboldt County, that means this initiative can’t pass.”

Riley Morrison, cannabis farmer and director of the Willow Creek Community Services District, urged the initiative’s proponents, Betsy Watson and Mark Thurmond, to withdraw the ballot measure and work with cultivators to “develop policy that works for the community environment.”

“If this initiative passes, it will destroy my ability to implement my business plan and will wither our farm down to its bones,” he told the board. “My wife and I … designed our farm business with a phased build approach, allowing buffers through poor market conditions and time to accumulate the capital to develop. … Over the next two years, we plan to build a barn allowing a new roofline, increased solar collection [and] develop farm stay and ecological tourism components. If this initiative is passed, this type of development will be considered cultivation expansion, requiring us to reduce our cultivation by 65 percent to implement rendering the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested … useless and a total loss.”

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, blasted the initiative proponents for failing to show up to Tuesday’s meeting, claiming “they have circumvented the collaborative process.”

DeLapp | Screenshot

“The fact that they are not here, that they have not called in, that they’re not here to defend their document is contemptuous,” she said. “They’re not here. We are here. We’ve been here with you and we need your help. We need your support. We need you to oppose this initiative. We need you to educate the public. We need ongoing education because clearly, the public does not understand what we have been through for the last eight years.”

Approximately 50 community members spoke during the two-hour public comment period, all of whom spoke against the initiative in one way or another.

Returning to board deliberations, Arroyo said she received an email from at least one of the proponents of the initiative during the break who said they could not attend the meeting because they were snowed in and had “limited connectivity.” She said they “expressed willingness to meet and talk” through some of the aforementioned issues, but “neither of them overtly stated that they would be willing to consider withdrawing the initiative.”

Arroyo also acknowledged that some people may have felt misled by the petition, but emphasized that “there are plenty of people who sat down and read the initiative before signing.”

“With more than 7,000 signers, surely some people understood the impact that this would have,” she said. “And I’ve heard from folks who did not feel comfortable coming into this room to express a different position. I think it’s worth acknowledging that there are people who might have felt differently who didn’t want to be here today because it was too intimidating.”

A disgruntled murmur could be heard from the crowd and Arroyo said she didn’t “need any heckling from the crowd.” She reiterated that she was “just voicing what I have heard from residents who have not felt comfortable entering the conversations” and said she looked forward to further collaboration.

Hayes reminded the board that efforts to establish an ad hoc committee “should not be construed as advocacy one way or the other.” The ad hoc committee would serve as a way to continue engagement between the county and the initiative proponents. She added that the board could “choose to take a position of support or opposition” to the initiative at a future meeting.

Bohn emphasized that he is “110 percent opposed to [the initiative] as it sits right now” and made a motion to appoint Arroyo and Ford to the ad hoc committee. Bushnell also expressed interest in sitting on the committee. Bohn obliged and amended his motion to include Bushnell. Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson seconded the motion.

After a bit more discussion, the board unanimously approved the motion in a 5-0 vote.

###

PREVIOUSLY: 

• An Initiative to Reshape Humboldt’s Cannabis Industry Qualified for the Ballot, and It Has Growers Worried
• Supes Agree to Put Controversial Weed Initiative on the 2024 Ballot, Though They Hope to Work With Organizers on Alternatives

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal has declared a Local Emergency as a result of the significant impact of ongoing winter storms throughout the county. 

Consecutive major winter storms have resulted in a large accumulation of snow, impassible roadways, downed trees, disrupted utility services, damaged and flooded roadways, mudslides, damaged structures and dead livestock; these impacts exhausting and exceeding available county resources.

Additional snow and rain in the forecast are expected to bring significant risk of downed trees, potential flooding in small streams and rivers, power outages and road blockages. 

The declaration allows for the county to seek state and federal reimbursement for damage repairs and other associated impacts. The amount of funding depends on the agencies that assist, including the State of California and federal government.

The County of Humboldt is requesting all available response and recovery assistance from the State of California and its agencies, including the California Public Utilities Commission, and the United States government and its agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Governor of California, including funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act and the federal Stafford Act.  

For updated information regarding Humboldt County’s emergency response, please go to humboldtsheriff.org/emergency and visit @HumCoOES on Facebook and Twitter.

###

Eureka!

If you’re interested in housing development and/or public transportation, know that Linc Housing — that company that will be building a bunch of units on public parking lots downtown — will be holding a public meeting tonight at the Jefferson Center to talk about what sorts of infrastructure and/or transportation improvements people would like to see in the city.

According to a flyer passed out at the City Council meeting last night:

The City of Eureka and Linc Housing invite you for a second community event about an opportunity for public transportation and infractructure improvements. This is part of a joint application for state funding.

We will share the results of the Community Survey and a refined list of potential improvements. If our application is successful, these improvements will increase safety and connection in the city.

Interested? The meeting takes place at the Jefferson Center (1000 B Street) and on Zoom. Doors open at 5:30 p.m., and the presentation runs from 6 to 7:15 p.m. Register to attend in-person at this link, or register on Zoom here.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget would cut funding for coastal resilience projects almost in half, eliminating more than half a billion dollars of state funds this year that would help protect the coast against rising seas and climate change.

The cuts are part of Newsom’s proposed $6 billion in reductions to California’s climate change programs in response to a projected $22.5 billion statewide deficit.

California’s coastal resilience programs provide funding for local governments to prepare coastal plans and pay for some projects that protect beaches, homes and infrastructure at risk from rising sea levels. Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming the planet, which melts ice and causes sea levels to rise.

Newsom’s proposal would budget $734 million for coastal resilience, a cut of 43% or $561 million compared to 2021 and 2022, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Some lawmakers told CalMatters that they are concerned about Newsom’s proposal to gut the programs that help coastal towns prepare for climate change and flooding, which already has damaged some communities.

Sen. Josh Becker, who chairs the Senate’s budget subcommittee, called the cuts “highly concerning,” especially because they are excessive compared to the cuts applied to other state programs.

“Most programs received 10% cuts,” Becker, a Democrat from San Mateo, said in an interview. “I’m very concerned about it, given the timing that we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most endangered in the state for sea level rise.”

Becker said he hopes to restore some of the money, possibly by finding federal funds to backfill some programs.

“These are dramatic cuts to something we agreed upon, and I’m going to try to get it back,” he said.

Newsom’s budget, released on Jan. 10, is not final, with revisions due in May.

“I’m very concerned about (the budget cuts), given the timing that we are experiencing these floods. My county is among the most endangered in the state for sea level rise.”
— Sen. Josh Becker, chair of Senate Budget Subcommittee

Experts say there’s a lot at stake if sea level rise and coastal projects are not addressed now. Last month the state Department of Transportation, Caltrans, released a draft management plan estimating that it needs nearly $15 billion over the next ten years to protect bridges and roads from sea level rise.

A 2020 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects more than $20 billion worth of California property will be at risk or underwater by 2050 without planning and funding. “Waiting too long to initiate adaptation efforts likely will make responding effectively more difficult and costly…. The next decade represents a crucial time period for taking action to prepare for” sea level rise,” the report says.

Much of the funding on the chopping block is in the form of grants to local governments to fund projects and planning. Among the proposed cuts is $64 million for cities to prepare extensive management plans to prepare for sea level rise.

Chris Helmer, director of environmental and natural resources for the city of Imperial Beach, said “if the state cuts adaptation projects, that would be a concern.”

The city received about $200,000 to prepare a draft sea level rise plan, he said. It also has a grant pending with the Ocean Protection Council for another project to protect the city from encroaching seas.

“If there’s no money, that’s a major concern for us,” Helmer said. This winter’s storm exacerbated already massive flooding issues, he said. Waves broke on city streets, sand was driven well past the beach and rocks were thrown through residents’ windows. The cleanup took two months.

Up the coast in Ventura, the storms also undermined beachfront infrastructure and proved the value of a project at Surfers’ Point, partially funded by a $1.6 million state grant, that relocated a parking lot and bike path away from the water and protected the beach with a “living shoreline.”

The second phase of that project is contingent on a $16.2 million grant application with the state. The timeline to begin is this winter.

Cody Stults, the city’s associate engineer, said he is optimistic that the grant funding would survive the cuts, but added that there is no way the city could afford to pay for the next phase of the Surfers’ Point project.

“If we can’t get the money, I can almost guarantee that the work will not be going through this winter,” he said.

Among the statewide programs with deep proposed cuts are protecting the coast from climate change, with a 65% cut; adapting infrastructure to sea level rise, a 74% cut; and implementing SB 1, a 63% cut.

SB 1 provides funding for much of the state’s sea level rise response. The author, Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, said the threat is more urgent now than when the 2021 law passed.

“The intent of SB 1 was to empower communities to work to find solutions at the local level to address sea level rise in partnership with the state,” the San Diego Democrat said in a statement to CalMatters. “While we are facing challenging times, the past decade of responsible budgeting has prepared the state to withstand a downturn without devastating cuts to critical programs.”

In testimony before the legislature last week, Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot characterized the governor’s proposed cuts as “surgical.” When pressed to explain how the administration prioritized programs that would be trimmed, he said the focus was on addressing “clear and present danger.” He identified wildfire and water projects as posing a direct and immediate threat to Californians.

Environmentalists said the governor’s proposal to cut climate funding is shortsighted: Rising seas are often described as a “slow moving disaster,” as the most devastating impacts are projected to show up in coming decades.

“Sea level rise is here,” said Laura Walsh, California policy manager for Surfrider Foundation. While wildfires are a “huge deal and we don’t want to compare sob stories, at this particular moment, living on the coast feels like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning,” she said.

Newsom proposed the cuts right when California was lashed with a damaging series of atmospheric rivers, flooding and high surf, which was proof enough that sea level rise is harming the state now, said Donne Brownsey, chair of the California Coastal Commission.

Brownsey didn’t criticize the governor’s proposed cuts, but said she hoped they would be re-evaluated because coastal programs are critical to addressing an imminent crisis.

“What we saw in January was the trailer for the movie. That’s the way it’s going to roll,” she said. “We’re hopeful that given what happened — all the flooding and damage up and down the coastline — we are hoping there will be a reevaluation of these programs. It’s not a future problem. It’s today.”

Brownsey and others noted that past budgets have been generous, but also that their programs are increasingly under pressure.

“Living on the coast feels like an emergency. This is not belt-tightening, this is drowning.”
— Laura Walsh, Surfrider Foundation

“We still have unprecedented amounts of funding to make these investments. The state is committed,” said Jenn Eckerle, deputy secretary for oceans and coastal policy and executive director of the state’s Ocean Protection Council. “But we also know impacts are happening now and we know they are only going to get more extreme over time. We also recognize that failure to invest in planning now can lead to significant costs later.”

Crowfoot told the budget panel that state agencies have been scouring federal programs for money to backfill any state funding losses. About $4 billion in new federal money is set aside for coastal resilience projects.

The Newsom administration floated the idea of a general obligation bond to make up for the cuts, and a “trigger” provision that would restore funding if the revenue picture brightens.

But Rachel Ehlers of the Legislative Analyst’s Office told the Senate subcommittee that expecting revenues to rebound is “optimistic.” She said there is a strong chance that the deficit will grow.

###

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