From fundraising emails to debate speeches, it’s everywhere: The “No Corporate PAC money” pledge is front and center in the campaign for California’s next U.S. Senator.

It is a promise shared by all three top Democrats, who hold largely similar voting records in Congress on a wide range of issues and who are trying to finish in the top two in the March 5 primary.

But it’s also a point of distinction: Rep. Katie Porter — who, of the three, has the shortest tenure in Congress — notes that her campaign has never received corporate PAC money, while Reps. Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee only began to reject corporate PAC money this election. The issue could come up again tonight, when the three Democrats and Republican Steve Garvey face off in the second televised U.S. Senate debate, hosted by KTLA, KRON and other Nexstar Media Group stations.

The Democrats’ rejection of corporate PAC contribution reflects similar pledges made by a growing number of members of Congress in recent years. The goal? To signal to voters a willingness to stand up to corporate interests and root out that influence in their decision making.

“It is something that helps members of Congress build trust with their voters and it ultimately makes sure that no corporation can walk into a member’s office and say, ‘Hey, I gave you this check. You owe me something here,’” said Jonas Edwards-Jenks, spokesperson for liberal advocacy group End Citizens United, which spearheaded the pledge.

The anti-corporate message may strike a chord with a wide audience: 80% of Americans polled last year said they believe donors have too much influence on members of Congress, and 73% believed lobbyists and special interest groups are too influential, according to the Pew Research Center.

What many voters care about is ensuring that “the government does not favor the interests of the rich and well-connected over ordinary people,” said Casey Dominguez, a political science professor at the University of San Diego.

But what does the pledge really mean?

“Corporation PACs” — as designated by the Federal Election Commission and more commonly referred to as corporate PACs — are political action committees operated by a single corporation that collect contributions from its executives, managers, stockholders and their families.

Sometimes, rejecting corporate PAC donations can mean leaving a significant amount of money on the table. During the 2022 election cycle, corporation-operated PACs (including non-stock companies) gave $150 million to federal candidates, accounting for 35% of all PAC contributions that election.

But the promise does not necessarily mean that the candidate has completely cut themselves off from corporate influence, or even corporate-linked money.

While Lee, Porter and Schiff are relying heavily on individual donors this election and have abided by the letter of their pledge, their campaigns have a history of accepting — and continue to accept — money from corporate executives and PACs operated by trade associations and professional organizations that represent the interests of a specific industry or group of businesses, according to a CalMatters analysis of campaign finance data compiled by OpenSecrets.

Also, corporations do not need to go through corporate PACs to exert influence. They can spend directly on lobbying activities, or contribute an unlimited amount of money to super PACs — political committees that can spend on independent expenditures to boost or oppose candidates — and to 501(c)(4) groups, tax-exempt politically-active entities often dubbed as “dark money groups” because they are not required to disclose their donors.

The rejection is therefore largely symbolic, allowing candidates to appeal to voters while raising enough money from elsewhere to run a statewide campaign, some watchdog groups and political science experts argue.

“Refusing corporate PAC money is not going to close off all avenues by which a corporate interest might try to influence a lawmaker,” said Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of the investigative news outlet Documented and former director of federal reform at the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center.

Champions of the “No Corporate PAC money” pledge, while acknowledging that it’s incremental, argue the promise is a step toward systemic reform.

“Rejecting corporate PAC money is a small step that some politicians choose to take to signal to voters that they want to work to fix a broken campaign finance system that too frequently gives special access to wealthy special interests,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonprofit advocating for campaign finance reform.

But the National Association of Business Political Action Committees, a trade group representing roughly 300 corporations and trade associations, deems the rejection a “dishonest attempt to silence employees.”

Micaela Isler, executive director of the association, said corporate PACs are a more regulated and transparent avenue of political contributions compared to super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups.

“If you get rid of us in our most regulated form of giving, I think … it would further exacerbate some of the concerns that (advocacy groups) have,” Isler said. “We are not the problem.”

Fundamentally, Fischer said, rooting out corruption would require an overhaul of the campaign finance system. “Pledges like this are important … but not sufficient,” he said. “A patchwork of voluntary pledges is not going to really limit corruption in the political system, writ large.”

Lee, Porter and Schiff have all touted their campaign finance reform efforts beyond the pledge, and all support public financing of political campaigns.

Porter, in her “Shake up the Senate” plan, calls for banning contributions from corporate PACs and federally registered lobbyists, although similar legislation has gone nowhere. Schiff has repeatedly introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 that prohibited government restrictions on corporate, nonprofit and labor unions’ political campaign spending. Lee has also co-sponsored the amendment and wants to “eradicate dark money and get to public financing of political campaigns,” according to her campaign.

What counts as corporate PAC money?

Companies themselves cannot give money to federal candidates. So sometimes, they set up corporate PACs to advocate for their interests.

But those PACs are not funded by companies themselves. Rather, corporate PACs collect donations from certain donors, who do not often include low-level employees.

Not all contributing employees get to decide where the money goes. Instead, a board of directors governing the PAC makes that decision “in the best interest of the organization,” Isler said, noting that some companies have diversified their boards to “ensure they have more voices at the table.”

Corporate PACs often spread out their political contributions to maximize their access to members of Congress, said Robert Mcguire, research director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group.

“Their aim is to get in the room with these members, to talk to them and be in their ear, whether or not they actually get the bills and policies that they are seeking,” he said.

As of June 2023, there were more than 1,600 federal corporate PACs — the largest group of any kind, according to the Federal Election Commission. But corporate PACs can only raise a maximum $5,000 per election from each donor. And, like most other PACs, corporate PACs can only give a maximum $5,000 per election to any candidate.

Both Schiff and Porter’s campaigns follow the FEC designation of corporate PACs. Lee’s campaign has a narrower definition, excluding PACs formed by a limited liability company or partnership.

Before they swore off corporate PAC money, Schiff and Lee both received contributions from corporate PACs to their congressional campaigns. Porter, first elected to Congress in 2018, has never taken direct campaign contributions from corporate PACs.

Historically, more corporate PACs reported giving to Schiff’s campaign: A total of 186 reported contributing $2 million to Schiff between 1999 and 2022, the data analysis shows. Schiff’s campaign received contributions from PACs, lobbyists and executives connected to for-profit companies for which he delivered millions of dollars in federal funding early in his career, Politico reported.

For Lee, who was first elected to Congress in 1998, 163 corporate PACs reported giving her campaign $860,000 by the end of 2022.

Corporate PACs have continued to contribute to Schiff and Lee’s campaign accounts this cycle, despite their pledge, campaign finance data shows.

Paramount Global PAC, affiliated with the entertainment giant, reported giving Schiff’s congressional campaign $5,000 in January. That check was never cashed by the campaign, Schiff’s spokesperson Marisol Samayoa told CalMatters in an email.

Five corporate PACs reported giving a total $18,350 to Lee’s congressional or Senate campaign accounts, including $10,000 from Akerman LLP PAC, $5,000 from FedEx Corporation PAC, $2,500 from Comcast Corporation PAC, $500 from Maxim Healthcare Services’ PAC and $350 from Meta Platforms Inc’s PAC.

Lee’s campaign said it accepted the check from Akerman because it does not count the law firm as a corporation, despite FEC’s designation for its PAC. A Lee spokesperson also said the Comcast PAC donation was received in early February — two weeks before Lee launched her campaign — and therefore does not violate the pledge. The rest of the checks were either voided or never received, the campaign said.

But other than contributing directly to candidates’ campaigns, corporate PACs have multiple avenues to benefit the candidates they support.

One way is to give to candidates’ leadership PACs — accounts created by members of Congress primarily to support other candidates.

While donations to leadership PACs may not directly go into the candidates’ own campaigns, the money still helps them build relationships. Some watchdog groups have also argued that leadership PAC money can be used as “slush funds” to pay for luxurious travels, hotel stays and more.

Lee, Porter and Schiff’s campaigns all told CalMatters their pledge also applies to their leadership PACs, and none of those accounts took corporate PAC money this election cycle. But corporate PACs have sent checks to all three in the past.

Frontline USA — Schiff’s leadership PAC — received $187,000 throughout his career, data shows. In comparison, Lee’s One Voice PAC received $14,500 in corporate PAC contributions.

While healthcare technology company Masimo Corp.’s PAC wrote a $5,000 check to Porter’s Truth to Power in 2021, the check was eventually voided, according to a copy provided by Porter’s campaign.

What corporate PAC money isn’t

Corporate PACs do not include trade association PACs or professional organization PACs, although trade groups often represent a wider array of industry interests.

“Trade associations can take positions or make statements or, in this case, make donations that individual corporations … may not want to be associated with or accountable for,” Fischer said. “Ultimately, the PAC money is used to advance corporate interests.”

They are included in the definition of “business PACs” used by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. It counts corporate PACs as well as “cooperative and trade association PACs that receive dues from businesses with a stake in these influential industries.”

A total of 519 business PACs tracked by OpenSecrets have contributed to the three Democrats’ campaigns at some point in their congressional careers. Only 297 of them count as corporation PACs under the federal definition.

Business PACs have reported giving the campaign accounts for Lee, Porter and Schiff $5.5 million during their time in Congress, the data shows. Roughly half of that — $2.9 million — came from corporation PACs.

Other business PACs reported giving $1.5 million to Schiff, $935,000 to Lee and $170,000 to Porter’s campaign over the years.

The political arm of National Association of Realtors — the largest trade group representing the real estate industry, with 1.5 million members — is the top non-corporate business PAC contributing to the three Democrats, reported giving a collective $240,000 to the campaigns. It’s Lee’s biggest trade association PAC contributor historically and ranks near the top among business PACs giving to Schiff and Porter, although it has only written a check to Schiff’s campaign this year for $2,000.

The Realtors’ PAC has consistently ranked among the top PACs contributing to candidates over the years, federal data shows. It was both the top spending business PAC and the top spender on lobbying in the 2022 election cycle and scored “advocacy wins” such as removing a dozen tax increase provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and securing a GOP sponsor for providing grants to under-utilized shopping centers, OpenSecrets reported.

Corporate executives continue to give

Through the “No corporate PAC money” pledge, candidates “are trying to look as if they are not accepting money from wealthy people,” said Ann Ravel, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and former chairperson of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

“That is not exactly true,” she said.

All three Democrats have also received contributions from individual executives this election cycle — another way corporate leaders can influence policymaking in Washington, experts say.

Donors who self-identify as CEOs or holding other executive positions have given Schiff’s campaign at least $648,000, according to a CalMatters analysis of self-reported occupation data from the Federal Election Commission.

Donors identifying themselves as executives have given Lee’s campaign at least $204,000 and Porter’s at least $197,000, the data shows.

The analysis is likely not comprehensive due to inconsistent reporting, since some executive donors can report themselves as self-employed or even unemployed.

Porter is the only one of the three Democrats to reject contributions from federally registered lobbyists and Wall Street executives, although her campaign has accepted money from several donors who meet the criteria, The Daily Beast reported.

She’s also the only one to reject money from executives from three specific industries — banking, pharmaceuticals and oil and gas, according to her ActBlue page. Porter told CalMatters in November that she rejects contributions from executives of those industries because they “are three of the most powerful, if not the three most powerful lobbyists in Washington.”

“A cynical person would say these are just industries that Americans generally have a negative view of and therefore … it is an effective messaging strategy to single them out,” Mcguire said, arguing other sectors — such as renewable energy and real estate — are just as powerful.

Porter’s campaign has accepted contributions from health care, tech and TV executives, as have Schiff and Lee.

Individual executives and their family members have also contributed to super PACs that boost Lee, Schiff and Porter, although these PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates.

Patty Quillin, Netflix executive chairman Reed Hastings’ wife, in June gave $500,000 to She Speaks for Me, a pro-Lee super PAC, accounting for a third of that PAC’s fundraising last year.

OVRSITE PAC, a pro-Porter super PAC, reported raising $25,000 last year from a single donor — Mark Rees, CEO of Celmol Inc., a Christmas decor wholesale company in Santa Ana. The PAC has launched a $500,000 TV ad blitz to try to ensure Porter’s spot in the top two, Politico reported.

Backed mainly by labor unions and Democratic leadership dollars, the pro-Schiff super PAC Standing Strong reported raising $2.7 million for the election cycle and entered the year with $2 million in the bank. It reported receiving almost $350,000 from corporate executives, including $125,000 from James Abrams, chief operating officer of healthcare company Medline Industries, and $100,000 from Bill Harris Jr., founder of Personal Capital and former CEO of PayPal and Intuit.

###

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

Madeleine Wisner dreamed of making community midwife services available to all expecting parents regardless of their income when she opened Welcome Home Community Birth Center in south Sacramento.

But 451 births and five years later, Wisner is packing up her family and moving from California to New Zealand, where government policies are far more favorable to midwifery. She closed her birth center in October.

Wisner was the only licensed community midwife who took Medi-Cal patients in the greater Sacramento region, but she’s leaving, she said, because it was impossible to sustain the birth center. Insurance refused to pay two out of every three claims she submitted for services including prenatal visits, labor and delivery, at-home postpartum check ups, and lactation consultations, Wisner said.

“The entire system is not made for us,” Wisner said. “I look at Medi-Cal as the standard of care, and midwives should be part of the standard of care.”

Her experience and decision to leave reflects larger problems for California midwives highlighted in a new study released today from UC San Francisco’s Osher Center for Integrative Health. It focuses on community midwives who work outside of hospitals but have licenses and training to perform much of the same reproductive care doctors provide to women with low-risk pregnancies.

The report warns that access to maternity care will worsen in California if the state does not increase the number of community midwives who are Medi-Cal providers at a time when hospitals are shutting down labor and delivery wards and maternal mortality is trending upwards.

Seventy-five community midwives are registered with Medi-Cal, according to data provided by the state. More than 1,000 nurse midwives are registered with Medi-Cal, but the majority of those providers work in hospitals and not in community settings, researchers said.

Outdated licensing requirements, tortuous state regulations and cumbersome insurance policies make it nearly impossible for community midwives to accept Medi-Cal patients, the UCSF report found.

Medi-Cal is the state’s health insurance program for extremely low-income residents. It pays for 40% of all births statewide, and midwife care is a guaranteed benefit for expecting mothers.

On paper, the benefit includes community midwifery, which focuses on providing care close to where people live either at a birth center or in the home. But the reality is different, researchers and providers say.

“So many people who have taken Medi-Cal in the past have had to stop or close their practices, and so many people who want to have not been able to make it happen,” said Ariana Thompson-Lastad, lead author of the study.

California’s ‘Momnibus’ Act

The UCSF findings come at a time when the state is trying to make inroads against persistent maternal and infant health disparities, particularly among Black families. Statewide surveys show Black mothers are the most interested in alternative birth support through doulas and midwives, which have been shown to improve a variety of birth outcomes.

Doulas are birth workers who provide non-medical social and emotional support during and after pregnancy while licensed midwives are clinically trained professionals who can provide a range of independent reproductive care for low-risk moms and babies.

In an effort to chip away at inequities, state lawmakers passed the “California Momnibus Act” three years ago. It required Medi-Cal to cover postpartum care for a full year after birth — the period when most maternal deaths happen — and added doula benefits. In January, rate increases for California doulas made them the highest-paid in the nation.

But state regulations simply aren’t designed to accommodate the services community midwives provide, UCSF researchers found.

For example, the Medi-Cal application until recently asked midwives to list a supervising physician even though licensed midwives are authorized to practice independently. Providers also said most community midwives conduct home visits during pregnancy and especially after birth, but Medi-Cal billing policies make it difficult to get reimbursed for services that happen outside of a clinical facility.

“The overarching policy issue for licensed midwives in California is that we continue to be regulated under a very dysfunctional arrangement,” said Rosanna Davis, president of the California Association of Licensed Midwives.

Midwife Madeleine Wisner measures Chloé Mick’s belly during a maternity care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

Wisner, who served mostly Medi-Cal patients, said on average insurance reimbursed just 17% of her costs — roughly $1,451 out of $8,500 for a full course of prenatal, birth and postpartum care — and frequently took months to pay her.

“We’ve had people have two or three babies with us before we get paid for the first one,” Wisner said.

The state is trying to make improvements, said Holly Smith, co-lead of the California Midwifery Learning Collaborative, but the system is still “failing a lot of people.” The midwifery learning collaborative is a five-state initiative aimed at improving access to midwife care. The state agency that oversees Medi-Cal recently joined, Smith said.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Health Care Services said it is working closely with the midwifery learning collaborative to help midwives “successfully navigate and work within Medi-Cal.” The department is using a document drafted by the collaborative to “continue making program and policy improvements” on issues related to billing and applications, the statement said.

Midwives could help fill maternity gaps

Large studies of birth center and at-home birth outcomes show that when trained midwives care for low-risk patients, cesarean section and preterm birth rates decrease while breastfeeding rates and reports of satisfactory birth experiences increase. Severe outcomes and deaths of mother and baby are exceedingly rare and similar to the rates found in planned hospital births. UCSF researchers also found that community midwives see patients more frequently before and after birth and are able to catch complications early.

The majority of Medi-Cal births — more than 80% — are babies of color. They and their mothers suffer some of the worst infant and maternal health outcomes. Even though the state has made improvements overall, it has struggled to curb severe pregnancy complications and death among Black women and babies. Black women of all income levels are more than four times as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related complications and their babies are nearly three times as likely to die within a year, according to state data.

Physicians deliver the vast majority of babies in California, and while the percentage of babies delivered by certified nurse midwives has increased slightly in the past decade most certified nurse midwives work in hospital maternity wards under doctors. Often when maternity services end, providers leave the area.

At least 46 hospitals have closed maternity wards since 2012, leaving a dozen counties without a single hospital delivering babies, a CalMatters investigation found.

Smith, with the midwifery learning collaborative, said historically state laws and policies have supported physician-only maternity care.

“It’s not safe anymore to do that,” Smith said. “We have a maternity desert situation. Literally hospitals are closing, and birth centers will be a necessary strategy for that.”

One of her last California patients

Midwife Madeleine Wisner speaks with Chloé Mick during a maternal care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

In a cozy house in Sacramento’s Oak Park neighborhood, Wisner has Chloé Mick lie back on her couch while her kids and husband play outside. Wisner measures the length of Mick’s uterus, feels for the baby’s position and they both listen to the baby’s heartbeat. Mick is 25 weeks pregnant and tired.

“I feel the most depleted probably just from having two other children that I hope I have the inner strength to not get a bad attitude during the process and make it through,” Mick tells Wisner.

Wisner responded, “Has it occurred to you that having a bad attitude is OK?”

Mick is planning a home birth, and Wisner assures her that going to the hospital would not be “giving up.” It would be listening to her body’s needs and responding appropriately. They make plans for what to do if the baby is breech or if Wisner’s New Zealand visa comes before Mick gives birth. When Mick’s second child was born, she was on Medi-Cal and Wisner was the only midwife who would take her.

“(The hospital) really feels like a business. You’re in and out, and you don’t have a rapport or relationship with them…It feels like your bodily autonomy is taken away,” Mick said. “And then you look back, and you wish you had done things different.”

Midwife Madeleine Wisner uses a fetal doppler on Chloé Mick’s belly during a maternal care consultation at Mick’s home in Sacramento on Feb. 6, 2024. Wisner is listening to the fetal heartbeat. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

Wisner wishes her birth center’s story had ended differently. Her practice finally had enough patient volume to maybe be sustainable, she said, but the other community midwives who worked with her didn’t want to argue with Medi-Cal insurers day in and day out. Over the past five years, Wisner estimates she poured $250,000 into the birth center to keep it open. It’s a big reason why she’s leaving California for another country where she’ll make $60,000 a year working four days a week with a team of other midwives.

“There was always this promise that the system would be reformed, you know, Medi-Cal is gonna get reformed,” Wisner said. “I was really let down.”

###

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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

If you’re not happy here and now, you never will be.

— Taisen Deshimaru

###

I’ve been saving quotations for years and years. I’ll be reading something (or watching a movie) and a line will just speak to me, a few words summing up a world of ideas and feelings. Or just something that makes me splutter with laughter over my morning coffee. Every so often, I’ll upload these precious gems into a book under the title Open Anywhere. It’s just for my own amusement and edification; the wonderful world of on-demand printing doesn’t care if I get one or a thousand copies, and for ten bucks, I’ve got all these worthy notions in a handy-dandy book.

All this by way of saying, one of the perennial section titles in on-going editions of Open Anywhere is “Happiness.” Since my in-box seems to be the receptacle for endless ways to achieve this (apparently) worthy goal, I thought I’d revisit the subject yet again, calling on those writers far wiser and more experienced than me to add their two cents, starting with author Geneen Roth:

“We spend at least half our lives in either physical or emotional discomfort, yet we persist in believing that happiness is our natural, normal condition and that when we’re not happy, we’re not normal.”

I can so relate to this! I’ve created a “set-point” of happiness (hence Roth’s “half our lives”) from which any deviation — up or down —immediately gets labeled, in my fickle mind, as “good” or “bad.” Why is the “good” so much easier to accept than the “bad”? That’s easy. Feeling bad was what got our ancestors through the rough-and-tumble of the Pleistocene, when contentment was likely a sure route to extinction! (Better to live in anxiety — Where’s the next meal was coming from? Will the waterhole last the dry season? Will she spend the night with me? — than bliss out and get eaten by the next carnivore that comes along.) Discontent and survival were practically synonymous on the savanna a million years ago, and we’ve inherited most of our ancestors’ traits.

I’ve written about Dan Gilbert’s take on happiness before, but it’s worth repeating. Gilbert is a happiologist, if that’s a word, at Harvard. In his book Stumbling on Happiness, he writes that we treat our future selves as though they were our children, “… spending most of the hours of most of our days constructing tomorrows that we hope will make them happy.” I think, “If I work double shift, I can pay off my Visa card in a year, and then I’ll be happy.” Twelve months later, I’m out of debt…but I’m worn to a frazzle and put on ten pounds and wonder if it was all worth it. Or I’ve just shifted my set-point higher and forgotten to appreciate my improved circumstances.

Then there’s the whole business of thinking of ourselves as “projects that can be tweaked and reworked and adjusted to improve the inner experience,” quoting author Geraldine Bell. As movie critic Anthony Lane puts it (in his rollicking review of Arthur Brooks’ and Oprah Winfrey’s book Build the Life You Want): “Restructuring your inward being, and increasing its turnover, is now akin to running a company. Personhood, like religion and politics, is a business.” At some point in my life, I guess I made the decision to stop aiming for more of everything — happiness, sex, money, fame and all the rest — and settle for what I’ve actually got, warts and all. Otherwise it’s just a non-stop fucking struggle. (Louisa just read that and said, “Really? You’re done?” “Literary license,” I said.)

And anyway, as far as future happiness goes, Tolstoy nailed it, as usual, in Anna Karenina: “[Vronsky] soon felt that the fulfillment of his desires gave him only one grain of the mountain of happiness he had expected. This fulfillment showed him the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realization of their desires.”

I’ll end quoting myself, ‘cos why not? “My next life, I’m coming back as a dog. A self-satisfied, tail-wagging, unconditionally loving border collie who won’t give a woof about happiness.”

Humboldt County’s transmission infrastructure is old. Connections to the larger grid are weak and undersized, forcing Humboldt to be reliant on the fracked gas-burning Humboldt Bay Generating Station because we cannot pull enough power from our grid connections to keep the lights on. And, conversely, those same undersized powerlines mean we cannot export the power that would be generated from offshore wind. Until new grid infrastructure is operational, offshore wind can’t be operational.

While offshore wind is driving grid improvements, grid improvements can also benefit Humboldt. With improved grid connections, we can shut down our greenhouse gas-spewing power plant. And improvements to the grid can improve energy resiliency for communities like Hoopa that frequently experience outages.

Arne Jacobson of the Schatz Energy Research Lab joins the EcoNews to discuss recent research produced by Schatz on transmission infrastructure planning.

REQUIRED READING:

• Northern California and Southern Oregon Offshore Wind Transmission Study

Press release from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office:

Today, the Honorable Judge Joyce Hinrichs sentenced 38-year-old Casie Lynn Dean to serve an agreed upon 7 years in prison for the voluntary manslaughter of Mr. Carol Johnson, in violation of Penal Code section 192(a), and for smuggling narcotics into the jail, in violation of Penal Code section 4573. 

On January 27, 2023, during nighttime hours, Johnson (69 years) overdosed due to fentanyl poisoning while he was a passenger in Dean’s pickup truck on Highway 101 north of Orick.  Dean, who provided the fentanyl to Johnson, stopped the truck at the side of the road and pulled Johnson out of the vehicle. She dragged Johnson away from the highway, down an embankment, into a secluded location near the tree line where she abandoned him.  In that same location where Dean left him, Johnson later died of acute fentanyl toxicity.

On January 31, a missing person’s investigation into Johnson’s disappearance was initiated, ultimately leading investigators to Dean as one of the last people known to have been with Johnson.  

On February 7, Dean assisted law enforcement in locating Johson’s body where she had left him.     

At the time of sentencing, Judge Hinrichs admonished Dean for her “atrocious” actions. District Attorney Stacey Eads said after the hearing, “I would like to thank the civilians who came forward during the investigation, as well as Lead Detective Victoria Johnson and the rest of the team at the Arcata Police Department. Fentanyl is a poison that killed 64 residents of Humboldt County in 2022, and in this case, the family was able to get some semblance of justice for the loss of their loved one at the hands of the person distributing this poison.”

The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Ian Harris, with the assistance of Senior Deputy District Attorney Roger Rees, and Dean was represented by local defense attorney Rebecca Linkous.

An adequate water supply traditionally has been a source of concern to cities and towns of the West. Eureka has been no different, even if the rainfall here has always been higher than in most places. Eureka also has the advantage of having several rivers and streams in the near vicinity. It has been the distribution of water — bringing it from its source to its consumers — that has been the problem.

Will N. Speegle, long-ago editor of the Humboldt Standard, wrote in April 1944:

Now that the city of Eureka seems definitely upon its way to have a real honest-to-goodness reservoir for its water supply, it might be a good time to review briefly the history of the municipal water system. Until the year 1886, the citizens of this community depended entirely on individual water sources, mostly operated by windmills or hand-pumps. There is still some evidence of these mills. Most of the windmills were replaced by pumps. The towers are still there, usually over the barn in the back yard. However, the tanks themselves have been long gone.

Caspar S. Ricks, one of our early pioneers, sank wells on his residential property between Fourth and Fifth streets and between G and H streets. If one knows where to look, there is still evidence of one of these wells. Originally, they were intended for the store buildings, residences, and livery stables that Ricks had accumulated in downtown Eureka.

The Eureka City Council granted a franchise to Caspar Ricks on July 16, 1882. The franchise stated he was to lay pipe throughout the city to furnish water to all citizens. An additional well was sunk on his property to accommodate the people of Eureka. This well was 22-feet square and 45-feet deep.

Soon after the beginnings of Eureka’s water supply, the Ricks Company was incorporated. The new owners were H. L. Ricks Sr. and Richard Sweasey. It became clear to the two after taking over the business that more water was needed to meet the increasing demand. It was decided to bring an “unlimited” supply from Elk River, a distance of six miles. A 13-inch in diameter pipe was constructed from the intake on Elk River located on the Showers Ranch. This pipe was designed by Sam Shuffleton, described by local folks as a “genius.”

The terminus of the pipe was at the corner of Fifth and G streets in downtown Eureka. To store this new water supply, the first of Eureka’s water tanks was built at Harris and E streets. A second tank was built a little later. The tanks were made of redwood and girded by metal rings. I can remember they leaked pretty badly. My uncle, Al Schemoon, was hired by the city of Eureka to tend to the lawn, shrubs, and flowers planted at the base of the tanks. He complained that the leaking water “drowned” his flowers.

All through these years, there was a great deal of agitation about the impurity of the Elk River water. Consequently, several rectangular wells were dug in back of what was to become the Humboldt Brewery on Broadway. These wells were designed to be used for emergency purposes—fire or drought, for example—only.

On June 22. 1902, the Ricks Water Company was incorporated as the Eureka Water Company. On December 30 oft hat year, the business was sold to Thomas Bair of Arcata. Bair continued to operate the business until the people of Eureka voted bonds for its purchase.

The continued agitation against the Elk River water supply lasted all through the first twenty years of the 20th century. The main complaint was the existence of farms in the area. Eurekans felt certain that the “offal” from the dairy herds in the area seeped into their water supply.

During those years, there remained a pumping station on the Elk River, which included several buildings and a big pump. Then on March 7, 1926, the Humboldt Standard reported that the abandoned station had “mysteriously” burned to the ground. By that time, it had been pumping water to Eureka for thirty-seven years.

Building Sweasey Dam

In 1927, plans were made to build dams and reservoirs on both Jacoby Creek and Ryan’s Slough. Both were dropped in favor of looking to the Mad River for the newest source of water.

Discussion about obtaining water from that stream started as early as 1933. From the start. Mayor Frank Sweasey assumed leadership. He was the son of the man who bought into the first water company here and became a partner of H. L. Ricks Sr.

Work was begun, finally, on the project to be known as the Sweasey Dam, located six miles upstream from Blue Lake. This was in early 1937. In June of that year, the Humboldt Times reported that local firms had successfully bid to construct a pipeline from the dam site to Eureka, a distance of twenty-two miles.

In December 1937, J. C. Barkdull, city clerk, announced that Uncle Sam had already paid $222,235 of the government’s grant of $318,000 to help build the structure. In 1938, Sweasey Dam was completed to the satisfaction of almost everyone. This was not, however, to be the case in the proposals for the two subsequent dams — Ruth and the Butler Valley and Blue Lake Project.

By November 1938, a very wet year, rains filled the reservoir, according to George Winzler, city inspector. On December 17, 1937, Mayor Frank Sweasey died. His dedication to the water supply of Eureka earned him his name on the dam. Sweasey was the last of the strong-willed individuals dedicated to working for a good water supply. After the mayor died, organizations like the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, local chambers of commerce, city councils, and water boards furnished leadership in this area.

Still, there were concerns. On May 15,1949, the Humboldt Times ran a story titled “Eureka Outgrows Water and Sewerage Systems.” The newspaper stated:

“Dying for a drink?”

We mean the stuff that comes out of the faucet. That might be no mere rhetorical question if a break should occur in the redwood stave pipeline which brings water to Eureka from the Sweasey dam on Mad River. Eureka has much less than a 24-hour supply of water stored in the three wood tanks at Harris and E streets, the wood tank at Cutten, and the high steel tank at Harris and K streets.

Total storage is 2,055,000 gallons. Average daily use in 1950 will be 3,200,000 gallons, it is estimated, with a maximum daily use of 4,500,000.

Recent growth of the city to the point where the water supply system has become prematurely overtaxed and the enactment of state laws regarding disposal of sewage have developed into a situation requiring Eureka to undertake a construction program of considerable magnitude.

The Eureka City Council, therefore, engaged the engineering firm of Koebig & Koebig to make an engineering study of the waterworks and sewerage systems of Eureka.

On June 20, 1949, voters decided a bond issue was necessary to make vital improvements to Eureka’s water system. The redwood pipeline, after more than thirty years of use, was partially replaced. The new 33-inch tube of cement-lined steel line went from Essex to the tumoff point near the Big Four Inn — nearly four miles. Also proposed was the raising of the dam from the original height of 200 feet up to 260 feet. Engineers were dubious about these changes.

As the years went by, dam personnel warned that the Sweasey Dam was silting up with gravel, sand, and debris. Compounding this picture was the fact that the fish ladder seemed to demand more and more repair work and, hence, was costlier than originally predicted.

In 1965, a local newspaper reported that the State Fish and Game Department wanted to have the dam removed. The paper went on to say, “It is true that mud, gravel, and debris have all but completely filled the reservoir in back of the dam.” In 1967, a contract was signed with A. C. Johnson and Sons to remove part of the dam.

Finally, Sweasey Dam was dynamited in 1970. In a letter dated August 17, 1970, from R. J. O’Brien, regional manager of the Department of Fish and Game, to M. T. McGovem, with the Department of Public Works, it was stated the removal of the dam had been done to their satisfaction.

A Caltrans engineer, in a report in later years, wrote that it was his opinion the dynamiting caused the mouth of the Mad River to move two miles north from its original starting point. He explained that all the sediment coming downstream in one fell swoop had laid the debris across the original mouth, blocking it for good.

The Sweasey Dam, the reservoir, and the pipeline served the citizens of Eureka’s vast water needs for many years.

A Water District is Born

Throughout the late 1940s and early ‘50s, Eurekans had become increasingly aware of the silting up of their dam and water supply.

The Bechtel Corporation was hired to do the preliminary work and to recommend a new dam site. Results of the Bechtel Corporation were conclusive —  the studies indicated the Ruth location in Trinity County was the best. Other sites had been investigated by the corporation, but found to be wanting for a variety of reasons. This included the number two site at Butler Valley in Humboldt County. Problems of construction, land acquisitions, and silting had ruled that site out.

During the fall and winter of 1955, the drive to build a new dam gained momentum. With spring approaching, the Eureka Chamber of Commerce became the promotional agency for an intensive election campaign. It had been determined the best legal tool would be to form a water district under California’s Municipal Water District Act of 1911.

That year, members of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce and the Humboldt County Board of Trade met to consider the formation of the water district. Representatives of unions, churches, city councils, service clubs, businesses, and the Board of Supervisors joined in. Committees were formed and action taken. Under the leadership of James A. Nealis, president of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce, and Bob Matthews, head of the Industrial Committee of the Eureka Chamber, plans were drawn up.

Voters went to the polls on March 13, 1956, and cast an overwhelming vote for the proposed Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. A total of 88.9 percent of the voters favored its formation.

Water Wars

The fight had just begun. Many wanted the new dam to be built in Humboldt County. This was especially true of the citizens in and around Ruth. They felt their beautiful valley would be inundated forever.

Also, as reported by the Eureka Independent, Trinity County’s Board of Supervisors took official action to block construction of the dam and reservoir at Ruth. “Keep It In Humboldt County” was their rallying cry. Locally, the Humboldt County Grange Committee was against the Ruth project and published flyers to have people vote against it.

Those against the Ruth Dam believed that though the dam would offer enough water, there simply wouldn’t be enough usage to warrant building it. Ruth Dam proponents soon secured assurance from local pulp mills that the mills would indeed use large quantities of water. With this promise, the Ruth Dam project was ago.

In April 1956, the city of Eureka voted to assign its application for 100,000 acre feet of water to the Municipal Water District of Humboldt County and the soon-to-be-built Ruth Dam.

A campaign to acquire a $12,000,000 general obligation bond issue to fund building of the dam was next in the general plan. The results of the vote showed that 69.17 percent of the voters favored the bond issue. A two-thirds vote had been required.

The water district directors signed contracts to deliver water to the Simpson Timber Company and Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Their mills were to be built on the Samoa Peninsula.

The groundbreaking ceremony for Ruth Dam took place on September 29, 1960. In September of 1961, contracts were arranged with a Seattle Company for a $3.4 million job on a thirteen-mile pipe line from Essex Station on the Mad River to Fairhaven on the Samoa Peninsula, to the pulp mills.

The House Appropriations Committee approved $1.2 million to fund the dam. On July 10, 1960, Congressman Don Clausen announced the bill had passed the full House Public Works Committee.

Other proposals brought forth at this time were the Anderson Ford Dam and Reservoir and the Larabee Dam and Reservoir.

At precisely 9:25 p.m., February 16, 1962, the Ruth Lake crested and water flowed over the spillway for the first time.

At noon on May 30, 1962, a dedication ceremony took place on the Ruth Dam site. Don Cave, president of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce, was million master of ceremonies. The sluice gates were opened by Don Cave and Bob Matthews. A western-style pit barbecue at Dinsmore followed.

Next year will mark the fortieth anniversary of our water supply from Ruth. It was a hard-fought battle, but it was won.

Butler Valley Dam

The last proposed major water supply project did not win the vote of the people. This was the Butler Valley Dam and Blue Lake Project.

During the year 1955, as the drive toward building a structure somewhere on the Mad River became more active, the site at Butler Valley was proposed. In September 1961, it was dropped in favor of the site at Ruth. The cost — $3 more than Ruth — as well as silting possibilities and soil composition were the usual reasons given for selecting one site over the other. This site at Butler Valley was not to be forgotten completely.

In the early 1970s, once again the cry for a Butler Valley Dam and Blue Lake Project (the official name) was heard. Sides were drawn up and the contest was on.

According to preliminary engineering reports, this dam was to be a multipurpose water storage project located in Humboldt County, 33 miles upstream from the town of Blue Lake. The principal structure would be a 326-foot embankment dam. There would be a shoreline of thirty miles. It would drain 352 square miles. The cost would be divided as follows: federal government, $32,500,000; local interests, $33,500,000; State of California, $800,000. To do all this would not require a property tax.

Representative Don Clausen announced in July 1968 that the Butler Valley Project had passed the full House Public Works Committee.

In the meantime, the opponents of the project were busy marshalling their troops. The Times-Standard reported that “a resolution to drop financial responsibility for the Butler Dam was unanimously passed (by opponents) and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors by the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District Board of Directors.” According to George Dinsmore, district manager, this action meant that the signing of a contract with dam contractors would not need authorization by a popular vote. This was a bombshell to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.

Then, in 1972, the Grand Jury issued its yearly report. It said the project should not be completed for the following reasons: no demonstrable need; environmental disaster for Butler Valley; potential for further water claims on the Mad River; adverse developments encouraged, and decline of sport and commercial fishing.

The Grand Jury further recommended the entire plan be put before the people for a vote. Even the proposed widening and paving of the road up Fickle Hill to easily access the dam came under criticism. One proponent of the project had said the dam would be a “psychological symbol.” The opponents jumped on this and used it as a logo for their campaign.

On November 6, 1973, the voters went to the polls. Proposition B on the ballot stated: “Authorization for construction of Butler Valley Dam and Blue Lake Project.” The ballot listed a tavern owner, a real estate businessman, the secretary-treasurer of the Sawmill Workers Union, and a retired county assessor as proponents of Proposition B. It listed as opponents a high school principal, a doctor, an attorney, and a commercial fisherman.

On November 7, the Times-Standard’s headline was “Butler Valley ‘No’ 2-1.” The whole plan was sent down to defeat. It had been a controversial plan from the start. The paper went on to write: “The people of Humboldt County have ‘spoken with a powerful voice’ that they do not want the Butler Valley Dam and it’s now up to the supervisors to tell the Army Corps of Engineers that the dam can never be built.”

That proved not to be necessary as Colonel James L. Lammie, district engineer, in viewing the results of the vote, sent the Board of Supervisors a letter saying, in effect, that they were terminating all further work on the Butler Valley Dam project at this time.

This was the last effort by local citizens to be concerned about the local water supply. Ruth Dam is still serving the area up to the present time.

###

The story above was originally printed in the Summer 2001 issue of the Humboldt Historian, a journal of the Humboldt County Historical Society. It is reprinted here with permission. The Humboldt County Historical Society is a nonprofit organization devoted to archiving, preserving and sharing Humboldt County’s rich history. You can become a member and receive a year’s worth of new issues of The Humboldt Historian at this link.

Dennis Wayne Krystosek passed away at home in Fortuna, surrounded by his loved ones, on January 30, 2024, after a brief battle with cancer.

Dennis was born on June 4, 1954 to Anthony and Dorothy Krystosek in Scotia. He was a happy-go-lucky kid with an adventurous spirit who loved the outdoors.

Growing up, Denny would ride in his father’s logging truck alongside his brother Mike and stepbrother Paul. Since there was only room for two people to sit, the three of them would rotate standing in the space behind the seats.

On his first day of school, after his Mom dropped him off, he quickly realized it wasn’t for him. He managed to make it back home before she did, but she promptly returned him to school.

Dennis was an easy-going man who loved a good joke. His smile and laugh were contagious.

He wasn’t in a huge hurry to grow up. He spent some years doing odd jobs to afford to go to concerts with his buddies. He loved to go fishing and having a good time was his top priority.

Everything changed when he met the love of his life, Beverly. He knew that she was way out of his league. He figured he had better settle down and get a real job. He went to work for Steve Wills as a truck driver.

He was always the first one to work, and never missed a day. His strong work ethic, coupled with his good-natured attitude and his driving ability, made him a favorite to most who worked with him.

He worked there for 20 years until he bought his first logging truck, which meant most weekends were spent maintaining and washing it. He bought another used truck, then in 2022, he bought a brand new truck. He spent less time working on it and more time enjoying it. He hauled his last load on Jan. 2, 2024.

Dennis and Bev had a special love. Even after 35 years together, they would both get so excited if they happened to pass each other on the freeway when he was working. They would giggle like teenagers.

Dennis not only found true, lasting love when he met Bev, but he also got what he referred to as his “Ready-Made Family” in Bev’s daughters and grandchildren.

Dennis came to be the rock in the family. Always there with a smile, a hug, and some encouraging words, offering unwavering support without judgement whenever anyone needed help.

Dennis & Bev valued family above all else. They made it a point to have monthly family dinners, where Dennis would cook the main course, alternating between BBQ, meatball stew, and spaghetti. These dinners were lively, boisterous and filled with laughter - a major factor in keeping the family close. As the family grew, with 25-30 people in attendance, these dinners remained a cherished tradition.

Dennis was survived by his loving wife, Beverly Krystosek; daughters, Krissy Morgan & Renee Morgan (Dave Griffith); grandchildren Tyler Barisdale (Ivi), Kolbi Brandt (Travis), Darien Griffith (Nik Erickson), Zoe Stouffer & David Griffith; great-grandchildren Chandler, Kayson, Taytum, Harper, Greyson, Kaiden and Poet; sister-in-law Lynda Hendrick; brother, Mike Krystosek (Bev) and nieces Brooke and Jolynn; step-brothers Paul August & Kenny Rowe; nephew Lee Pelasini and many other family and friends.

Preceded in death by father Tony Krystosek; mother and stepfather Dorothy and Jim Rowe; and granddaughter, Savannah Barisdale.

Dennis will be deeply missed by his family, friends, and all who had the pleasure of knowing him. He requested that no services be held and the family will respect his wishes.

In lieu of flowers, please love your family well, tell a good joke, laugh easily and often, or help someone in need.

To his many trucker friends: To pay tribute to Denny, next time you’re on the road, give a little tug on the airhorn in honor of your dear trucker friend.

Rest in peace, Dennis. You will always be remembered.

###

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