Valley leaders ask state legislators to avoid cutbacks to services, investments

Alarmed by budget cuts pending in Sacramento, Kern joined seven other county governments in the San Joaquin Valley this week in calling on state legislative leaders to ensure adequate funding for regional priorities like public health, homelessness, water storage and wildfire resilience. Chairman David Couch of the Kern County Board of Supervisors signed a three-page letter Tuesday outlining concerns with Gov. Gavin Newsom's latest budget proposal, called the May Revision. The correspondence was also signed by Couch's counterparts in the counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare. Addressed to budget committee chairs in the state Senate and the Assembly, the letter raised five areas of concern it termed “essential investments” that touch on the valley's “environmental crisis and the importance of expanded access to behavioral and other health services.” The two people Tuesday's letter was addressed to — state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills — did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday. The state budget has become a major concern lately as the Legislature considers a spending plan Newsom says results in a $3.4-billion surplus but which the Legislative Analyst's Office says still leaves the state $7 billion in the red despite some $42 billion in new cuts, use of reserves, program pauses and borrowing or use of non-tax revenues. Tuesday's letter suggests all eight counties have common priorities in the following areas, each of which comprised a subheading, in this order: critical public health services; human services, behavioral health and homelessness; water storage and drought preparedness; wildfire response; and road and broadband support. The first item on the county supervisors' list lamented the proposed elimination of $52.5 million in fiscal 2023-24, and $300 million annually thereafter, for what's called Future of Public Health Infrastructure. Because of how important that money has been for maintaining readiness for public health emergencies, it said, carrying out those cuts “would be nothing short of irresponsible.” Such cuts would be worsened, it said, by proposed reductions in related initiatives totaling several hundred million dollars over four years. Those efforts are intended to strengthen nursing, social work and other in-state workforces. The letter also opposed redirecting revenue from California's Managed Care Organization tax away from its intended goal of improving the availability of medical providers. Human services, the counties' next-highest stated priority, would suffer under the elimination of a series of programs, in combination with a reduction in a home-visiting program, according to the letter. It said cuts to what it deemed critical safety net programs, such as help for veterans and other homeless populations, is “irresponsible and attempts to balance the budget on the backs of low-income Californians, of which the valley has a disproportionate share.” With regard to water and drought, the letter expressed concern about the May Revision's plan to cut $500 million from proposed water storage investments. It noted the revision made no mention of future investment in drought-proofing water conveyance and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Another top concern listed in the letter was the proposed budget cuts to CalFire that the signatories predicted would weaken the state's ability to fight and prevent fires. The letter brought up a related point — wildfire insurance as part of California's insurance crisis — for which the eight county supervisors noted Newsom has promised to address. As of Tuesday, they noted, critical details in his plan have not come forward. The letter's final item pushed back against budget cuts in the areas of road maintenance and improvements. It also called out proposed delays in expanding broadband internet access in rural communities. In its final paragraphs, the letter added that valley governments critically need money for other priorities left unmentioned in the letter. But without support for those already listed, it said, the eight counties' ability to meet their communities' needs “will become exponentially more challenging.”

Chairman David Couch of the Kern County Board of Supervisors signed a three-page letter Tuesday outlining concerns with Gov. Gavin Newsom's latest budget proposal, called the May Revision. The correspondence was also signed by Couch's counterparts in the counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare.

Addressed to budget committee chairs in the state Senate and the Assembly, the letter raised five areas of concern it termed “essential investments” that touch on the valley's “environmental crisis and the importance of expanded access to behavioral and other health services.”

The two people Tuesday's letter was addressed to — state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills — did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The state budget has become a major concern lately as the Legislature considers a spending plan Newsom says results in a $3.4-billion surplus but which the Legislative Analyst's Office says still leaves the state $7 billion in the red despite some $42 billion in new cuts, use of reserves, program pauses and borrowing or use of non-tax revenues.

Tuesday's letter suggests all eight counties have common priorities in the following areas, each of which comprised a subheading, in this order: critical public health services; human services, behavioral health and homelessness; water storage and drought preparedness; wildfire response; and road and broadband support.

The first item on the county supervisors' list lamented the proposed elimination of $52.5 million in fiscal 2023-24, and $300 million annually thereafter, for what's called Future of Public Health Infrastructure. Because of how important that money has been for maintaining readiness for public health emergencies, it said, carrying out those cuts “would be nothing short of irresponsible.”

Such cuts would be worsened, it said, by proposed reductions in related initiatives totaling several hundred million dollars over four years. Those efforts are intended to strengthen nursing, social work and other in-state workforces. The letter also opposed redirecting revenue from California's Managed Care Organization tax away from its intended goal of improving the availability of medical providers.

Human services, the counties' next-highest stated priority, would suffer under the elimination of a series of programs, in combination with a reduction in a home-visiting program, according to the letter. It said cuts to what it deemed critical safety net programs, such as help for veterans and other homeless populations, is “irresponsible and attempts to balance the budget on the backs of low-income Californians, of which the valley has a disproportionate share.”

With regard to water and drought, the letter expressed concern about the May Revision's plan to cut $500 million from proposed water storage investments. It noted the revision made no mention of future investment in drought-proofing water conveyance and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Another top concern listed in the letter was the proposed budget cuts to CalFire that the signatories predicted would weaken the state's ability to fight and prevent fires. The letter brought up a related point — wildfire insurance as part of California's insurance crisis — for which the eight county supervisors noted Newsom has promised to address. As of Tuesday, they noted, critical details in his plan have not come forward.

The letter's final item pushed back against budget cuts in the areas of road maintenance and improvements. It also called out proposed delays in expanding broadband internet access in rural communities.

In its final paragraphs, the letter added that valley governments critically need money for other priorities left unmentioned in the letter. But without support for those already listed, it said, the eight counties' ability to meet their communities' needs “will become exponentially more challenging.”