The Brief

It has been more than two years since the release of ChatGPT created widespread dismay over generative AI’s threat to academic integrity. Why would students write anything themselves, instructors wondered, if a chatbot could do it for them? Indeed, many students have taken the bait, if not to write entire essays, then certainly to draft an outline, refine their ideas or clean up their writing before submitting it.

And as faculty members grapple with what this means for grading, tech companies have proved yet again that there’s money to be made from panic. Turnitin, a longtime leader in the plagiarism-detection market, released a new tool within six months of ChatGPT’s debut to identify AI-generated writing in students’ assignments. In 2025 alone, records show the California State University system collectively paid an extra $163,000 for it, pushing total spending this year to over $1.1 million. Most of these campuses have licensed Turnitin’s plagiarism detector since 2014.

That detector first became popular among professors when the internet made it easy for students to copy and paste information from websites into their assignments. In the AI detector, faculty members sought both a way to discourage students from using ChatGPT on their homework and a way to identify the AI-generated writing when they saw it.

But the technology offers only a shadow of accurate detection: It highlights any matching text, whether properly cited or not; it flags everything that mirrors AI’s writing style, whether a student used AI inappropriately or not. And Turnitin licenses this technology to colleges while demanding “perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable and sublicensable” rights to student writing. The company has used these rights to build a massive database of student papers, which it uses to market the superiority of its existing products as well as build new ones, including the AI detector. Turnitin has become so valuable that in 2019 Advance Publications paid $1.75 billion to acquire it, more than the total amount raised by all ed-tech startups the prior year, EdSurge noted at the time.

To understand the full range of consequences stemming from Turnitin’s place in higher education, CalMatters and The Markup interviewed dozens of students, faculty members and administrators across the state and obtained Turnitin purchase orders documenting the amount paid over time by approximately 60 colleges there. This investigation revealed institutions willing to renew Turnitin subscriptions year after year despite the cost, faulty technology and concerns about privacy and intellectual property raised by the company’s ever-expanding database of papers.

Turnitin tries to make the gray area of academic dishonesty into something black-and-white, and many faculty members drive demand, searching for the promise of algorithmic accuracy. But honest students are caught in the crossfire of an arms race between technology that mimics human speech and technology that claims to identify it.

The rise of Turnitin

In 2004 Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, a photography professor at College of the Canyons, chaired her campus’s technology committee. She became one of the first Turnitin users at the large community college north of Los Angeles, testing out the software before campuswide adoption. Purchasing records obtained by CalMatters and The Markup show Brill-Wynkoop’s license cost just $120 in 2004. The following year, College of the Canyons paid 75 cents per student and less than $6,500 total to make the tool available to all faculty members for as many papers as they wanted to scan. This year, the college paid almost $47,000.

As teaching and learning increasingly shifted online throughout the early 2000s and 2010s, Turnitin became more embedded in classes. College of the Canyons, like many institutions, paid extra to integrate the plagiarism checker into its online learning management system, where faculty members had begun to post assignments and reading materials and students were expected to submit their papers. Turnitin’s default settings, once integrated, are to scan every assignment, not just those that professors suspect are plagiarized. Besides accelerating the growth of the company’s student-paper database, this puts the tool in front of faculty members who otherwise wouldn’t have used it.

The Turnitin similarity score of a student essay in one of Adam Kaiserman’s classes at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita on May 6, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

In fact, Brill-Wynkoop had largely stopped using Turnitin to check student work after a few years. “If I had a student who I suspected wasn’t using their own words, I’d pop the phrase into Google and then could just show them,” she said. “I wouldn’t have gone back to [Turnitin].” But since her college built it into the system she was already using to read student papers, she found herself checking the automated reports again.

When the pandemic shut down in-person instruction on campuses nationwide in 2020, fresh anxiety over academic integrity created another windfall for Turnitin. The GovSpend database of government-purchasing records shows a nationwide spike in Turnitin contracts during the 2020-21 school year. And in California, at least, many colleges processed more cheating accusations that year, too, according to academic dishonesty case counts obtained by The Markup and CalMatters via public-records requests. Those case counts dropped — sometimes precipitously — with the return to in-person learning but climbed again when the release of ChatGPT gave Turnitin its next crisis to monetize.

This year’s $47,000 contract with Turnitin for plagiarism and AI detection pushed the total spent by College of the Canyons to over half a million dollars.

Turnitin executives did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story. Worldwide, the company licenses its software to more than 16,000 institutions that cumulatively enroll over 71 million students. Almost three-quarters of California community colleges now use it, as does the entire California State University system, except Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Cal Poly canceled its contract last year saying not enough faculty used Turnitin to justify the cost, but not before it spent $171,000 on the detectors from 2020 to 2024. Cal State campuses have spent a combined $6 million on Turnitin since 2019 alone, according to records obtained by CalMatters and The Markup. Several University of California campuses spend more than $100,000 per year on the detector, which Turnitin licenses for a per-student fee.

As part of this investigation, CalMatters and The Markup tracked down more than $15 million in purchases of Turnitin plagiarism-prevention software across 57 institutions. Of course, since California is home to 149 public colleges and universities, this amount represents just a fraction of the total spending statewide. And while College of the Canyons released 21 years of receipts, most campuses shared only three to seven.

Robbie Torney is the senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, a national nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco that does research and advocacy work around how young people use technology. He said $15 million is a lot of money to spend on a tool with such limited value. He pointed to troubling reports of Turnitin erroneously flagging student writing as AI-generated and equally troubling accounts of students using simple workarounds to undermine the AI detectors.

“It’s probably better to invest in training for professors and teachers,” Torney said, “and also creating some frameworks for universities to message to students how they can and can’t use AI, rather than trying to use a surveillance methodology to detect AI in student writing.”

Yet many faculty members still want the tool, and colleges have continued paying for it year after year. Records show the Los Rios Community College District, in the Sacramento area, has paid almost $750,000 since 2018 to license Turnitin’s antiplagiarism software. In the Los Angeles Community College District, this year’s license alone cost $265,000. And UC Berkeley is just a few years into a 10-year, nearly $1.2-million contract of its own.

Amassing student papers

Turnitin helps convince college leaders to buy its tools by arguing it knows student writing better than any other company in the world. It has been making this case for decades by pointing to the size of its database, regularly updating its website with the latest student-paper count — 1.9 billion as of June 2025.

Brill-Wynkoop heard the same pitch back in the early 2000s: Instructors could catch a student turning in a peer’s paper from a previous semester with Turnitin. But the company doesn’t need to keep papers for decades to accomplish this.

The Community College League of California signed an agreement in 2016 with a company called VeriCite, locking in pricing for any of the state’s 116 community colleges that wanted its plagiarism-prevention software. VeriCite also claimed to help colleges catch students turning in their peers’ papers. But the tool only made student papers searchable to faculty members on campuses covered by the contract, and it gave them a chance to opt out of letting VeriCite pool their students’ work. The company claimed no rights to student intellectual property or copyright over their work.

After Turnitin bought the company in 2018, a new set of terms and conditions took effect: Now student papers go into Turnitin’s global database and the company maintains a perpetual, royalty-free license over all of them.

When Turnitin acquired another plagiarism-detection company, Unicheck, in 2020, the El Camino College student newspaper reported that the institution switched vendors rather than put up with Turnitin’s contract terms. Still, the vast majority of colleges and universities across California continue to hand over student writing to Turnitin in the name of plagiarism prevention.

Students’ cell phones are laid out on a table by the door in Adam Kaiserman’s English class at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

Students take notes during Adam Kaiserman’s English class at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita on May 6, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

Jesse Stommel, an associate professor at the University of Denver, started speaking out about the company’s database of student papers in 2011, when he discovered his dissertation was in it. As a writing instructor, he takes issue with schools unquestioningly handing over original student work to a for-profit company.

In his syllabus, where the university requires him to include a statement about Turnitin, Stommel tells students, “It is my commitment to you that I will not submit any of your work to Turnitin. Plagiarism-detection software like Turnitin monetizes student intellectual property and contributes to a culture of suspicion in education. I trust you. I trust that your work is your own.” He then encourages students to ask him if they have questions about how to properly cite sources and directs them to an essay he co-wrote if they want to learn more about Turnitin or how to protect their intellectual property.

Students have protested Turnitin use too. An undergrad at McGill University, in Canada, failed multiple assignments in 2003 after refusing to submit them to Turnitin. He appealed to the university administration, ultimately winning the right to have his papers graded without the technology.

In 2007, high schoolers in Virginia and Arizona sued iParadigms, Turnitin’s parent company at the time, arguing that its database violated their copyright over their own writing. The courts disagreed. The students also lost on appeal, but some colleges still warn their faculty against using free online plagiarism checkers because of privacy concerns inherent in handing student work over to third-party companies.

Turnitin says it doesn’t “monetize” student writing, per se, but it has raised its prices since releasing an AI detector, which the company developed using that writing.

Brill-Wynkoop said she and her colleagues never thought that the student-paper database could one day become a source of profit for Turnitin. “That makes me feel bad as a faculty member, that I encouraged my students to use something, and now, I don’t know,” she said. “None of us thought about big data and how it would be used in the future.”

Students listen and take notes during Adam Kaiserman’s English class at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita on May 6, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

‘Caught in the middle’

For today’s undergraduates, routine surveillance and violations of privacy are an unavoidable part of college life. Emily Ibarra, who just finished her second year at Cal State Northridge, said she has never even used ChatGPT. Yet, like all students on her campus and many millions more across the country, she has to deal with the consequences of widespread suspicion about her generation’s integrity.

“That culture is getting normalized here, of professors being able to take the furthest lengths possible to make sure [students aren’t cheating],” she said. “It kind of makes you feel defeated before you even start.”

When Ibarra started college, she panicked at the sight of her first Turnitin “similarity report.” Some faculty members let students see the reports as soon as they turn in their assignments, while others show students the reports only if they want to discuss a problem.

A screenshot of a Turnitin “similarity report,” highlighting text the detector indicates could be plagiarized.

(

Courtesy of Delilah Brumer

)

“At first I didn’t know what it was,” Ibarra said. “It shows green, yellow, red, so at first I thought it was grading the quality of my writing.” On a short assignment, she said, it’s almost impossible to avoid a “yellow” report because Turnitin’s text-matching scanners will flag quoted material and suggest it could be plagiarized. So far, none of Ibarra’s professors have accused her of academic dishonesty, but the risk, she said — even if she doesn’t intentionally plagiarize or use ChatGPT — is “really stressful.”

Ibarra has a tool called Grammarly installed on her computer that she has been using since high school to catch spelling and grammar mistakes; only now, she said, some professors at Cal State Northridge tell students not to even use spell-check tools because they’re bolstered by AI. Microsoft Word, Google Docs and Grammarly now all rely on the same algorithms that create ChatGPT’s human-sounding responses to suggest improvements to users’ writing. Ibarra says she uses Grammarly only to correct misspellings and missed commas, but, like other students interviewed for this story, she isn’t always sure when appropriate use of ubiquitous technology veers into academic dishonesty.

Joshua Hurst, who just finished his junior year at Cal State Northridge, said Turnitin flagged his writing in the spring of 2024. He hadn’t used ChatGPT to craft the assignment, but he had used Grammarly to clean up his writing before turning it in. His professor didn’t dock his grade, but Hurst knows other professors might have. Now he runs his writing through two different checkers before submitting anything.

Hurst is excited about AI-driven innovation and is glad to be part of a generation that gets to experience it, but the lack of consensus over acceptable AI use and the threats posed by faulty detectors make him shake his head.

“Students,” he said, “are the ones who are caught in the middle.”

The Center for Democracy & Technology, a D.C.-based nonprofit focused on research and advocacy around digital rights, surveyed high schoolers about their experiences with a range of educational technologies last summer. At the request of The Markup, now a part of CalMatters, researchers asked students whether they or anyone they know had been wrongly accused of using generative AI to cheat. One in five said yes.

When Common Sense Media surveyed a nationally representative group of teenagers about their AI use last year, it found that Black teens were twice as likely as white and Latino teens to say their teachers had flagged their work as AI-generated when it wasn’t. In their report about the survey, researchers attributed this difference, in part, to teachers’ bias. Black students have long been disciplined at far higher rates than their peers.

Other researchers have pointed to the vulnerability of non-native English speakers subjected to these detectors because their writing is likely to use simpler syntax and a more limited vocabulary, which happens to be typical of AI-generated writing.

Nilka Desiree Abbas suspects that’s why she was accused in the summer of 2023. A native Spanish speaker, she was taking a political science course at San Bernardino Valley College and got a zero on an assignment along with a curt message from her professor saying she had used ChatGPT. But Abbas, who is from Puerto Rico, said she hadn’t.

“It took me so long to go back to school,” she said with a toddler at her side. “To be falsely accused felt devastating.” She ultimately passed the class with a B and graduated with a degree in administration of justice the following spring, but she was shaken. She took photos of her progress on assignments in her remaining courses to create an evidence trail of original work.

Turnitin has since fine-tuned its detector to avoid accusing non-native English speakers more often than native English speakers, but it acknowledges its detector still gets it wrong sometimes. And stories like Abbas’s have saturated Reddit communities and TikTok feeds, creating anxiety even among students who don’t think they cross any academic integrity lines while completing their assignments.

CalMatters and The Markup spoke with more than a dozen current undergrads, and virtually all of them described strategies to reduce the likelihood of being wrongly accused. A freshman said she adds typos to her writing to distinguish it from AI’s. Many students said they check their papers with Turnitin before submitting them, when professors allow it, and with additional online detectors for good measure. This step has become a form of due diligence for students, most of whom describe at least some level of concern that they could be accused without having done anything wrong.

Jasmine Ruys, who oversees student conduct cases at College of the Canyons, said she often sees students who think they were wrongly accused but unwittingly used AI.

“There are students who go to other colleges where that college purchases Grammarly, the pro version, installs it on their computers to help them and when they turn it in to our instructors, it gets caught by the AI detector,” Ruys said. “It’s hard because students think they’re doing the right thing and they’re getting caught up in it because [AI] is just embedded in everything.”

The illusion of a solution

Turnitin’s original text-matching software wasn’t especially sophisticated at detecting actual plagiarism, but at least it could point to the original source behind its accusations, and a faculty member had something to assess; they could ignore the text Turnitin highlighted because students were quoting reading material or citing an appropriate source. The AI detector determines what portion of an assignment was probably generated by AI but leaves it to faculty members to puzzle through whether that AI-like text represents a violation of academic integrity.

Adam Kaiserman has taught English at College of the Canyons for more than a decade. Unlike some of his colleagues who forgo Turnitin’s technology, he looks closely at the software’s similarity reports. And while he said he plans to keep using the tool, he didn’t describe it as very helpful. Student habits have shifted. Both Kaiserman and Ruys said they almost never see traditional plagiarism in Turnitin’s text matches anymore; students who are inclined to cut corners will just use AI chatbots instead. And the software misses much of the AI-generated writing it scans, in part because Turnitin has become more conservative about what it flags to avoid accusing honest students. The software also doesn’t scan for content accuracy, leaving a key tell of AI writing undetected.

Adam Kaiserman lectures during his English class at College of the Canyons in Santa Clarita on May 6, 2025.

(

Jules Hotz

/

CalMatters

)

“The biggest tipoff [of AI use] are fake quotes or hallucinations, which Turnitin isn’t good at catching,” Kaiserman said. When a paper mentions a person who doesn’t exist or a quote that never appeared in the reading, what many refer to as “hallucinations,” Turnitin has no idea. It just measures how much the writing mirrors the style of AI-written text.

While many students are as honest as ever, plenty have started to use AI. They describe using ChatGPT on assignments they don’t care about, reserving their full effort for papers they see as a higher priority. Sometimes they outsource deeper thinking and planning to AI when they are stumped by a blank page and want help with how to write an introduction or structure a paper. In the Common Sense Media survey, 63% of teens said they had used a chatbot or text generator for school assignments.

Now, many colleges make chatbots available to students for free, driving even wider use. A survey of undergraduates in the United Kingdom this past December found 88% had used AI on assignments, mostly to explain concepts, summarize content and suggest research ideas, but 18% of those surveyed said they had submitted work that included some AI-generated text.

At College of the Canyons, Ruys has found that when students do use a chatbot to complete a paper, it’s usually because they had too much on their plate with school, they were preoccupied with work or family commitments or they didn’t understand the assignment. Instead of going to their professors, they went to AI. During academic-dishonesty hearings, she guides students to campus resources that can help them better manage their workloads. But she considers a lot of AI use to be in an ethical gray area, including when students write a first draft themselves and then polish it with an AI tool.

“Isn’t that very similar to our tutors?” Ruys mused.

Administrators from the California State University Office of the Chancellor, Cal State Northridge and the Los Angeles Community College District, all of whom occasionally teach, said they don’t use Turnitin in their own courses, even if they defend their institutions’ software licenses more broadly. Stanford University doesn’t license the technology at all, advising its faculty that the tools can erode feelings of trust and belonging among students and raise questions about their privacy and intellectual-property rights.

Stommel, the University of Denver professor, said faculty members often believe cheating is on the rise and that detectors are one of the only ways to keep students honest. But he shares evidence that cheating rates have long remained largely flat, even post-ChatGPT. He also pans the use of Turnitin as a scare tactic. “We see this with the criminal-justice system,” he said. “Deterrence doesn’t actually work.” What does work, he argues, is building trusting relationships with students. “Turnitin immediately fractures that relationship with students.”

Sean Michael Morris, a frequent co-author of Stommel’s and a longtime educator, also tries to convince faculty members they don’t need Turnitin despite the company’s marketing, which champions its value to academic integrity.

“Ed tech does a good job of convincing you that it is huge, permanent, there, 100% necessary for education,” he said. “That’s its big lie.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Saying he had concerns it could disenfranchise voters during the midterm election, a federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s demands that California election officials set aside 20,000 ballots that it claimed could have been mailed to noncitizens.

“Some of these may be very valid voters, and that’s my concern about disenfranchisement,” said U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Carter said he would issue a formal ruling by Wednesday, but he told the courtroom he was likely going to appoint a special master to weigh the evidence both sides present at a hearing in two weeks. That means his final ruling might not come until after the election.

He said he didn’t want to “just wing it with a ruling” based on last-minute evidence the federal government submitted to the court the night before Tuesday’s hearing.

Carter also suggested that his ruling would order federal authorities to stop telling election officials that they could face criminal charges if they didn’t comply with the Trump administration’s demands. The Trump administration on Friday sent letters to California election officials telling them to set aside ballots from suspected noncitizens, and threatened them with criminal charges if they allowed those people to vote.

“This court believes it would be wise that any threats to state or county (election) employees cease immediately,” Carter told the courtroom.

Carter’s remarks point to yet another likely legal blow to the Trump administration as it seeks to validate President Donald Trump’s longstanding claims of widespread election fraud favoring Democrats. Experts and election officials say those claims are meritless.

Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the government’s list of 20,000 people may contain citizens, but he said the possibility that noncitizens were voting illegally was too great a threat.

“I would ask the state how many illegal votes is OK for them?” Essayli said. “It cannot be that the state has a right to facilitate the counting and tabulation of noncitizen votes. There’s no right to that.”

The Trump administration sued California earlier this month saying election officials refused to comply with a 48-hour federal deadline to set aside the ballots of up to 20,000 people the administration had flagged as possible noncitizens until the voters’ citizenship could be verified.

The administration sought a temporary restraining order forcing the state to comply.

California officials argued there was no way they could since they were busy overseeing the election. They also called the demand an illegal effort to meddle in state-run elections that could disenfranchise legal voters.

“I just want to make sure the stakes are clear: that what we’re talking about is stripping voting rights from thousands of people until proven otherwise,” said Anne Bellows, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice.

Judge points to immigrant arrests

State and county officials also have questioned the methodology the federal government used to flag possible noncitizens.

In a court filing, Los Angeles County officials said that a sampling of 200 names from the federal list, which included people from all over California, found that many of them were likely citizens and that most had not voted before and were not sent ballots. Federal investigators re-reviewed those 200 names and found that only four were citizens, Essayli told the judge.

“We stand by the reliability of the information,” he said. “We take our obligations and ethics very seriously.”

Carter noted that, last week, federal prosecutors charged 28 California green card holders for allegedly voting or registering to vote in violation of laws prohibiting noncitizens from participating in elections.

He said that if noncitizens really are voting in as large of numbers as the Trump administration claims, there’s nothing stopping federal prosecutors from finding them and charging them without the risk of blocking legal voters from having their ballots counted.

“If it’s this big, you’ve got a remedy for goodness sakes,” Carter told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”

After the hearing, Essayli said from the courthouse steps that the state could “resolve this today.”

“They just seem disinterested in getting to the bottom of this,” Essayli said, noting that the number of ballots in question could tip smaller elections. “A lot of elections are decided by tens of votes or hundreds of votes."

9th Circuit ruled against Trump

The hearing came a day after two judges on a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an emergency effort from the Trump administration to bypass Carter’s courtroom.

The Trump administration sought an emergency order from the appellate court, claiming that Carter didn’t schedule a hearing fast enough. The two judges said prosecutors’ arguments about urgency didn’t hold up.

Their ruling noted that the prosecutors have been making claims about illegal voters on California’s voter rolls since July and could have taken action any time since, so their “claimed emergency, at least in part, is a self-constructed one.”

Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, noted in a concurring opinion that he had “serious doubts” about the federal government’s claims that prosecutors could “superintend or intervene in a state’s election administration.”

He wrote that Congress granted states — not the executive branch — authority over elections.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, argued that “federal law precludes California from commingling ballots likely cast by aliens with legitimate ballots, because it encourages and induces illegal voting.”

“Stopping that practice for those identified as likely noncitizens is the bare minimum,” Bumatay wrote.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Los Angeles City Council gave the L.A. Police Department the green light Tuesday to move forward with a pilot program to install new automated license plate recognition cameras in the city, despite concerns from council members and the public about privacy and surveillance.

The council voted 9-6 to veto the program, but fell short of the 10 votes required to nix the agreement and send it back to the Board of Police Commissioners.

Under the pilot program, security company Axon Enterprise will install cameras on some city streetlights for a three-month trial period, at no cost to the city.

The narrow vote divided the council, which debated at length whether L.A. should move forward with introducing more license plate readers on its streets without additional requirements on how the police use the data.

This summer, LAPD declined to renew its contract with Flock Safety for license plate readers after reports that law enforcement agencies including LAPD had shared Flock data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. Across California, the use of AI license plate readers has faced pushback from community members concerned about how the information is used.

The L.A. City Council voted 9 - 6 to veto the program and fell short of the ten votes required to nix the agreement.

(

Courtesy of the L.A. City Clerk's office

/

YouTube

)

“I certainly understand the department's desire to bring on a new company to replace Flock, but in the neighborhoods that I represent, there still seems to be a lot of uncertainty about how this new technology will work,” said Councilmember Curren Price, who voted to veto the pilot program.

Council members who blocked the veto cited public safety concerns, saying there were other ways to require the police to increase transparency. Councilmember Traci Park said that outrage over the technology stemmed from misinformation.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who also voted against rejecting the pilot program, said the council’s power to negotiate tighter regulations on how LAPD uses license plate reader data could come later on, after the three-month testing period.

“The point of leverage is going to come after the three months, he said. “That's when we're going to be faced with this question about ‘Do we expand this?’”

How we got here

The City Council weighing in on an LAPD pilot program is not the norm, and comes after months of heightened scrutiny over how the department utilizes automatic license plate reader data. The department primarily uses the technology in its vehicles rather than on city streets.

In July, the Office of the Inspector General for the L.A. Board of Police Commissioners issued a lengthy report on the status of the technology within LAPD, and recommended the department get approval for new contracts from the Board of Police Commissioners, a civilian body appointed by the mayor that determines policy for the department.

That’s what led the board to consider and approve the Axon pilot program in September. That opened up an opportunity for the L.A. City Council to intervene in the decision. Under the city charter, the council can veto actions by boards of commissioners with a two-thirds vote.

That’s what Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez was pushing for when he initiated the council vote. He said Tuesday that the vote was an opportunity to push the police department to commit to independent auditing of how it uses automated license plate reader data, establish board oversight of sharing data with external agencies and limit who in the department can access the data.

“We should take time to make sure that we have thorough, thoughtful protections laid out before we install more cameras,” Soto-Martinez said Tuesday.

The pilot program is just a small slice of LAPD’s business with Axon. The Board of Police Commissioners also recently approved a 10-year, $235 million contract with the company for body cameras, tasers and automated license plate recognition cameras for around 1,600 police vehicles.

That contract will require council approval and is currently being reviewed by the city administrative officer, according to the mayor’s office.

Record-breaking high tides rolled into Southern California waters for the second day in a row Tuesday.

The tide gauge in San Pedro read 8.18 feet Tuesday morning, its highest measurement since records began more than a century ago, after already setting a new record on Monday. The previous record of 7.93 feet was set in 2005.

Records were also broken at tide gauges in La Jolla and Santa Barbara.

High water levels spilled over seawalls and swept across beaches, inundating communities along L.A. and Orange County coasts that have been hit repeatedly by storm surges and destructive surf over the last few months.

“We've already seen impacts that we have not had in quite some time,” said Lisa Phillips, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service. 

The exceptionally high tides were expected to peak Tuesday and slowly subside as the week progresses. Coastal flood warnings are in effect up and down the coast until Thursday afternoon.

But scientists say the conditions are just a preview of what’s to come in the next few months with the highest astronomical tides of the year — and peak El Niño season — still on the horizon.

Coastal flooding

On the Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach on Monday, water poured over the seawalls of some homes that back up to Newport Harbor, leaving up to a foot of flooding in some intersections.

At the corner of 39th Street and River Avenue, Diane Teitscheid waded ankle-deep, motioning for cars to slow down so as not to slosh the water into her and her neighbors’ garages.

“All the water on our entire street is coming from that house,” she said, pointing to a home where water rushed through the side gates.

The city urged residents to prepare for the high tides, knocking on doors and offering free sandbags at multiple locations. Some did not heed the warning.

“What we're finding is there's just some private residents that are choosing to do nothing,” said Joe Stapleton, the Newport Beach City Council member whose district includes the Balboa Peninsula. “And by doing nothing, they're intentionally flooding streets and neighbors' properties.”

Stapleton said the city is now planning to take “more of an enforcement approach,” which could include fines for people who refuse to bolster their seawalls with sandbags in flood-prone areas.

Several Newport Beach homes were inundated by seawater on Monday.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Tide levels in some parts of Southern California set records Monday, when this photo was taken on Newport Beach's Balboa Peninsula, and again the following day.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Flooding also prompted officials to shut down part of Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach.

Farther north, seawater inundated streets and homes on the Long Beach Peninsula, where a number of structures along the boardwalk have been rendered uninhabitable by recent storm surges from Hurricane Marie and Tropical Storm Rachel.

What’s pushing the tides over the top?

Tides are naturally high during this time of year because of the position of the moon and sun.

But at the moment, other factors are driving up sea levels and pushing astronomical tides even higher than they would normally be.

First, the ocean off the coast of Southern California is warmer than ever recorded — we’re nearly a year and a half into a prolonged marine heat wave. Since warmer water takes up more space than colder water, sea levels are higher. Water temperatures across the Central Coast and Southern California are 5 to 9 degrees above average.

Roads and homes near 38th Street Park on Newport Beach's Balboa Peninsula flooded Monday.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Scientists say the warming is being driven by a combination of human-caused climate change and El Niño, a climate pattern in which the normally cooler eastern Pacific Ocean heats up.

Second, El Niño has pushed a Kelvin wave into Southern California waters. What’s a Kelvin wave? It’s essentially a huge mass of warm water moving across the ocean. When a Kelvin wave collides with a landmass, it can raise sea levels up to a foot.

University of California climate scientist Daniel Swain also said the current tidal conditions are just the beginning of even more severe high tides over the next several months. That means more flooding for coastal communities.

“We have not seen the worst coastal flooding this year that we're likely to see later,” Swain said. “This is probably, unfortunately for those who are dealing with it, just a preview of what is to come. The coastal flooding will be more widespread geographically and probably significantly deeper later this season.”

Swain said king tides — the term for tides at their yearly peak — have yet to arrive. Tides generally don’t reach their highest until late November, December and January.

On top of that, Southern California will likely see continued sea level rise from El Niño-driven Kelvin waves over the next few months. And this year’s potentially historic El Niño season is also likely to come with significant rain, potentially adding storm surge and surf.

Drive around Newport Beach this election season, and you’re likely to see lawn signs with an image of four giant concrete bunnies behind bars below the phrase “SAVE OUR PARK.” It’s a reference to the current City Council’s controversial idea of building a new police headquarters and jail on the parkland that surrounds the Newport Beach Civic Center, home to the famous, or infamous, “Bunnyhenge” sculpture.

The proposal, one of several the city is considering for a new police headquarters, wouldn’t actually lead to the sculpture’s demise, but the idea of paving over a significant portion of the open space and paths around the sculpture has emerged as a top issue in the city’s November City Council race. Other major issues include protecting the city’s vulnerable shoreline from El Niño and preventing the kind of chaos that engulfed the Balboa Peninsula on July 4, when looting, illegal fireworks and street brawls broke out, leading to hundreds of arrests.

Three seats on the seven-member council are contested (in a fourth seat, Robyn Grant, the incumbent has no challengers). Two challengers, Walter Stahr and Andy Gerken, entered the race in their respective districts specifically to fight against building a new police station in the park, which would include the city jail.

“I am 100% opposed to a jail in the park. That is my number one issue,” Stahr said at a candidate forum in September.

Walter Stahr, a candidate for Newport Beach Civic Council District 3, jumped into the race out of concern for the proposal to build a new police headquarters in Civic Center Park.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

At the same forum, Gerken said, “I imagined a police department there and the park gone, and I thought, ‘How could I not run?’ So I ran to save the park.”

The issue illustrates a classic Southern California debate, and one that gains increasing urgency as developable land grows ever more scarce — how valuable is open space?

Everyone agrees Newport PD needs new digs. But where? 

Newport’s current police headquarters, off Jamboree Road, is more than 50 years old. The force has outgrown the building, and it is plagued by maintenance problems. “It’s routine that we have sewage backup; we had the electrical fire last month, the power outage with the failure of the backup generator in November,” Dave Miner, the police chief, said at a city meeting in March. “We definitely do need a new building.”

Neither the City Council members nor the candidates running to unseat them dispute the need. The question is where.

A series of ad hoc committees has looked into several options:

• Rebuild the headquarters in its current spot
• Build on a city-owned site near John Wayne Airport, which was purchased years earlier with a potential police headquarters in mind
• Purchase private land for the new headquarters
• Convert a portion of Civic Center Park, right across from City Hall, which would mean razing some of the sculpture garden that includes Bunnyhenge
  

Concept designs show the police station taking up to one-quarter of the existing parkland on a slope that would put it right under the watchful gaze of the giant concrete rabbits of Bunnyhenge.

Earlier this year, when the majority of City Council members seemed to favor the park option, opponents sprang into action. Dozens of people showed up to a City Council meeting in March to speak against the idea, including Stahr. He is challenging incumbent Erik Weigand in District 3 along with another challenger, Tim Stoaks.

“Parks are sacred spaces,” Stahr said from the lectern at that meeting. “One does not destroy a park to make way for an office building, because, face it, that’s what the police station really is: it’s an office building and a parking structure and a huge gas station.”

Up to a quarter of Newport Beach Civic Center Park, and up to about half of the lower part of the park, could be razed to build a new police headquarters.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

Supporters say putting the new police station on city property makes financial sense and would consolidate the city’s main services at the Civic Center.

No decision has been made to build the new headquarters on the parkland. But the city has allocated at least $1.5 million dollars to evaluate the option.

Once maligned, Bunnyhenge hopped into locals’ hearts

The controversy over potentially putting a new police station in the park has echoes in Newport Beach history. In the early aughts, the city was desperate to replace its outgrown City Hall. One controversial option was to build it on part of the land, the same slender parcel at issue now, that residents had been promised as their own coastal version of a Central Park.

Residents put the idea on the ballot in 2008, and after a whopping $800,000 in spending for and against the measure (the equivalent of about $1.2 million today), voters approved the new Civic Center.

One of the walking paths that would likely have to be rerouted or eliminated if a new police headquarters is built in Civic Center Park.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

The park was developed along with the Civic Center, including the sculpture garden where Bunnyhenge sits. It also includes wetlands, walking paths through native coastal vegetation and a dog park.

The quirky installation of giant rabbits at the park has spawned love and ire over the years. Families take their holiday pictures with the concrete beasts, and they’ve become a destination for out-of-town visitors thanks, at least in part, to their inclusion in the popular Atlas Obscura travel guide.

But some, including former City Councilmember Scott Peotter, thought the bunnies were a waste of money. In a 2014 campaign video, Peotter criticized city officials for spending money on the installation. At the end of the video, Peotter walks away while one giant bunny’s heads spontaneously explodes. (It wasn’t real, and the bunnies still stand.)

Park lovers say a new police station would not only intrude on the sculptured bunnies’ territory, but the project would also eliminate walking paths, jeopardize the adjacent wetlands and reduce habitat for the real bunnies and other animals that live in the park.

What do the candidates say about building a police station in the park?

At a forum held in late September at the OASIS Senior Center, City Council candidates were asked which site is most appropriate for a future police station and why. The two challengers running on the issue, Stahr and Gerken, were unequivocal about where it should not be located.

“Definitely not the Civic Center Park,” Gerken said, adding that he would consider the police department’s preferences regarding the other options.

Stahr said, “I don't know the precise place it should be. The one thing I am absolutely morally convinced of is that it does not belong in the park.”

The other two challengers, Stoaks and Tina Babajanians, also said they opposed the idea.

In contrast, incumbents Weigand, Lauren Kleiman and Joe Stapleton didn’t rule out the possibility. “What I will agree with a lot of people in the community is this process has been flawed from the beginning,” Stapleton said, noting that he would have favored a “more public-facing committee” rather than the initial ad hoc committee, which had no public members.

Kleiman, who is facing a challenge from Gerken to represent District 6, said she supports building a new station “anywhere that is central and that allows the police to have continued operation … that would not impact safety in the city.” She said ideally the new HQ would get built where the current one sits, but doing so would be logistically challenging and disrupt police operations.

Weigand, who is facing a challenge from Stahr and Stoaks to represent District 3, said he was “OK with studying the Civic Center site … to figure out if it actually works.” If it turns out it's not feasible, he said, the city should look at nearby properties that would put the new HQ in “the heart of our city.”

After the candidate forum, resident Pamela Marks said her top issue is making sure the police station doesn’t get built in the park. But more than the idea itself, she said, she doesn’t think the current City Council has listened to residents’ concerns about the proposal. “I get that feeling when I go to the meetings. They kinda roll their eyes and, you know, they just blow it off,” she said.

Asked why preserving Civic Center Park is important to her, Marks said, “The park's important to me because open space is important to me.” She said she volunteers for the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center in neighboring Huntington Beach. “I've released wildlife in that park because that's where it was found.”