12 California cities in North Coast, North State that are growing
California's population grew for a second year. It's now home to approximately 39,529,101 people, according to state population data released in May.
That means the Golden State recouped almost all of the population it lost in 2020 and 2021 — an estimated 358,543 people. It started 2025 with just 9,122 fewer residents than it had in 2020, state Department of Finance population estimates show.
Pockets of growth were spread across far Northern California or the North State and North Coast. Among cities that saw significant growth was Paradise in the Sierra foothills of Butte County, in a sign of ongoing rebuilding since the Camp Fire in 2018 leveled the town.
Overall, 241 California cities had population gains, while 240 other cities saw declines and one — Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County — saw no change, the report found.
Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Redding Record Searchlight, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know.
More: Shasta County sees more people leave while California population rebounds post-COVID
Crescent City: This Del Norte County community picked up 468 new residents and saw its population increase to 6,056, an 8.38% growth since 2024.
Paradise: This Butte County city gained 805 new residents and saw its population increase to 11,088, a 7.83% growth since 2024.
Susanville: This Lassen County city picked up 766 new residents and saw its population increase to 12,270, a 6.66% growth since 2024.
Chico: This Butte County city, and Redding's larger neighbor to the south, gained 2,876 new residents and saw its population increase to 113,847, a 2.59% growth since 2024.
Oroville: This Butte County city gained 432 new residents and saw its population increase to 19,653, a 2.25% growth since 2024.
Arcata: This Humboldt County city gained 310 new residents and saw its population increase to 19,001, a 1.66% growth since 2024.
Willows: This Glenn County city gained 103 new residents and saw its population increase to 6,475, a 1.62% growth since 2024.
Corning: This Tehama County city gained 106 new residents and saw its population increase to 8,268, a 1.30% growth since 2024.
Yuba: This Sutter County city gained 672 new residents and saw its population increase to 70,453, a 0.96% growth since 2024.
Yreka: This Siskiyou County city gained 50 new residents and saw its population increase to 7,879, a 0.64% growth since 2024.
Live Oak: This Sutter County city gained 56 new residents and saw its population increase to 9,658, a 0.58% growth since 2024.
Woodland: This Yolo County city gained 217 new residents and saw its population increase to 61,623, a 0.35% growth since 2024.
More: 22 California cities north of Sacramento with slight population losses
Jessica Skropanic is a features reporter for the Record Searchlight/USA Today Network. She covers science, arts, social issues and news stories. Follow her on Twitter @RS_JSkropanic and on Facebook. Join Jessica in the Get Out! Nor Cal recreation Facebook group. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today. Thank you.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Which California cities are growing north of Sacramento?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Official sorry over 'fiasco' delay that stopped Westminster law scrutiny
A senior Stormont official has apologised for failing to give assembly members enough time to scrutinise Westminster legislation before it becomes law. Neil Gibson, the permanent secretary at the Department of Finance, said he took "full responsibility" for the delay and promised to learn lessons from what happened. The Data Use and Access bill, which aims to modernise laws around the sharing of data, will now be passed without the legislative consent of assembly members at Stormont. Instead they will discuss and "note" the bill when it comes before the chamber. Speaker Edwin Poots said it was "unacceptable" while the leader of the opposition, and chair of the Finance Committee, Matthew O'Toole described the delay as a "fiasco". The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have already given their consent for the legislation, which is expected to receive royal assent within weeks. Appearing before the Finance Committee, Neil Gibson apologised to members and linked the delay to the Windsor Framework. He said officials waited for more than two months to get an assessment from the UK government on how the new legislation might impact the Windsor Framework. This was a process the Scottish and Welsh administrations were not required to do, he added. He accepted officials should have notified the committee about the hold up, which he said was his "biggest regret". Mr Gibson also confirmed a new tracker system will be put in place to ensure all Westminster bills which require a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly is progressed on time.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: Can Newsom block tax payments to the U.S. government? No, but we do give more than we get back
California Gov. Newsom threw down the gauntlet to Donald Trump last week after Trump threatened to cut off all federal funding to the state. In a post Friday on X, Newsom observed: "We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back" from the federal government. "Maybe it's time to cut that off." Let's get the fundamental points out of the way right off. First, both threats are fanciful to the point of serving as performance art. The administration has been trying to portray this as a one-way street, that they provide all these dollars to California and somehow California is not deserving or worthy of them compared to the other 49 states. H.D. Palmer, California Dept. of Finance Trump's efforts to cut off congressionally allocated funds to public and private recipients have already run into a judicial buzzsaw, as would his threat to California were he to try to put it into action. In lawsuits brought by recipients of grants and loans, several federal judges have blocked Trump's actions. In perhaps the most embarrassing climb-down by Trump, on Jan. 29 his budget office rescinded a memo freezing billions of dollars in expenditures by federal agencies — just a day after it had issued the memo. I asked the White House to be more specific about Trump's threat, and was told, "No decision has been made at this time." On the other side of the ledger, nothing could be clearer than that the state has zero power to block the payment of federal taxes by California residents. This is money that never passes through the state's hands, and in any event it's the responsibility of individual taxpayers (or their employers, when the money is withheld from paychecks) to make the payments. The state does withhold taxes from its employees' paychecks, but the law mandates that it forward those withheld funds to the IRS just like private employers. "The Governor is not suggesting that individual taxpayers cease paying their federal taxes," a spokesperson for Newsom told me by email. "However, the state is looking at all options to protect the interests of the people of California, including determining whether there are potential options that would allow it to retain some of the funding it typically sends the federal government." The office didn't specify further what that funding comprises. Newsom was making a larger point, however. Read more: Hiltzik: After Maine's governor publicly challenged him, Trump threw the state's Social Security into chaos "The administration has been trying to portray this as a one-way street, that they provide all these dollars to California and somehow California is not deserving or worthy of them compared to the other 49 states," says H.D. Palmer, the spokesman for the state Department of Finance. "If we really want to have an honest conversation about inflows and outflows and the dollars that California provides to Washington, let's have a serious discussion. That's not what's happening here." Newsom amplified his point about California's contribution to the federal treasury — albeit without the threat to cut it off — in an official statement also issued Friday. "Simply put," he said, "as California goes — so goes the country." Trump hasn't specified what money he's threatening to cut off. But a look at the role of federal funding in the state budget provides and indication that sustenance for millions of Californians hangs in the balance, making this fight more than merely a contest of political micturition. The state budget for fiscal 2025 includes about $1.8 billion in the federal government's contribution to the state's school lunch program that serves more than 1.5 million schoolchildren. An additional roughly $101 billion is the federal share of California's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, in which 15 million Californians are enrolled. Some $20 billion represents the federal contribution to California's substance abuse and mental health services, and $1.3 billion defrays the cost of supplemental food stamps for women, infants and children. That's a lot of money, but Newsom was right to observe that it's dwarfed by the money that California taxpayers send to Washington — and through Washington to most of the other states of the union. California consistently has been a "donor state," one whose residents pay more to the federal government than the state gets in return. The recent figures are compiled annually by the New York-based Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, which adds up grants, contract payments, wages of federal employees, and Social Security and Medicare benefits paid to residents of every state, and matches them against federal personal and payroll taxes and other receipts to calculate a balance of payments for each state. (California doesn't count employee wages or Social Security and Medicare benefits as budget items.) Read more: Hiltzik: The GOP attack on the safety net and middle-class programs begins to take shape The Rockefeller Institute notes that the "taking" states — those that receive more than their residents pay out — tend to be those with high poverty rates, due to assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) and Medicaid; those with a high proportion of seniors, due to Social Security and Medicare; those hosting big defense contractors and military bases; and those with lots of federal employees (Virginia and Maryland being the poster children in that category). At least since 2015, California has ranked among the top five "donor" states as measured by their balance of payments, but not counting the extraordinary COVID assistance payments in 2020-22. It ranked first in 2018, 2021 and 2022 (apart from COVID assistance) and second (behind New Jersey) in 2019. The COVID benefits, which transferred pandemic costs to the federal government, severely skewed the balance-of-payments math; in 2020 and 2021, no state was a "donor" state. If anything, Newsom may even have downplayed the size of California's negative balance of payments with the federal government. The $83-billion figure he and others have cited was the Rockefeller Institute's figure for fiscal 2022, incluiding the government's COVID assistance. Disregarding the COVID funding for 2022, California's excess contribution to the federal government rises to a record $126.5 billion. In both calculations — with or without the COVID funding — California's excess of payments over receipts is nearly three times that of the runner-up (New Jersey if COVID is included, New York if it's not). That brings us to the question of what all these calculations mean. The last time I addressed the question, in 2010, it was because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asserted that the imbalance was the cause of the state's budget deficit. Read more: Hiltzik: Social Security is again in the crosshairs of a GOP budget, even though a long-term fix would be simple Schwarzenegger complained that California received only 78 cents back from the feds for every dollar it sent to Washington, based on contemporary calculations by the Tax Foundation. (The Rockefeller Institute calculated California's return on its dollar in 2022 as 88 cents including the COVID aid, 82 cents without it.) Schwarzenegger made a pilgrimage to Washington to cadge more money from the government, but came home empty-handed. The root cause of the deficit, I noted then, was Schwarzenegger's decision to rescind the state's car tax without finding a replacement revenue stream, blowing a hole of as much as $6 billion a year in the budget. This time around, the donor-state issue wouldn't be very relevant to any governmental policy, except that red state politicians have been trying to cut off federal funding to California, based on the notion that the state is somehow uniquely wasteful of federal resources. Among the champions of the asinine idea that disaster aid for the victims of the January wildfires should be conditioned on changes in state policies were Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose state's land-use policies have contributed to the devastating effects of the hurricanes that regularly visit its shores. The truth is that California runs a revenue deficit with the rest of the United States in part because it's the biggest, richest state with the biggest, most successful economy. Those factors generate a tidal wave of tax revenue, especially among the state's highest-income professionals and entrepreneurs, thanks to the progressive structure of U.S. tax rates. Another part of the equation is that California has a relatively low poverty rate (it ranks 23rd among the states), so its residents receive proportionately less in federal economic assistance than most other states. Those are the major factors in almost any state's balance-of-payments. "No number of military bases or other goodies is going to make up for having a disproportionately large number of high-income people,' Bill Ahearn, then the director of policy for the Tax Foundation, told me in 2010. In terms of its donor status, California is a victim of is own success. No other state can boast its combination of high income and relatively low poverty, the ineluctible formula subsidizing high-poverty/low-income states, which are concentrated in the Southeast and are mostly led by Republicans. They would be getting a lot less from the federal government without states like California to fill the Treasury's coffers. Not that we Californians expect any gratitude. That's politics. Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
San Francisco Chronicle
09-06-2025
- San Francisco Chronicle
50 trucks will spend 5 months transporting Lahaina wildfire debris to a Maui landfill
LAHAINA, Hawaii (AP) — Fifty trucks will spend five months hauling Lahaina wildfire debris to a landfill in the center of Maui starting next Monday, Maui County said. There's enough debris to fill five football fields five stories high. About two years ago the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century killed 102 people and turned vast stretches of Lahaina into burned rubble. The trucks are expected to make multiple trips each day moving the debris from Olowalu, a town south of Lahaina, to the Central Maui Landfill about 19 miles (30 kilometers) away, the county said in a statement. Part of the route follows a winding, two-land coastal highway. The trucks will travel on former sugar cane plantation roads for portions to limit traffic disruption. For safety reasons, crews will only work during the day. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finished clearing Lahaina properties earlier this year but it's had to temporarily store the debris at a former quarry on state-owned land in Olowalu while authorities searched for longer-term solution. In December, the Maui County Council approved acquiring privately owned land next to Maui's existing landfill for a permanent disposal site. Handling debris after large wildfires is always a logistical challenge. It took Paradise, California, officials about a year to transport more than 300,000 truck loads of debris to three different landfills after the 2018 Camp Fire killed 85 people and burned most of the town. Maui County said it evaluated the debris with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Hawaii Department of Health and determined transporting and storing it at the landfill didn't post a public health risk. Workers will lightly wet it before loading it onto trucks to control dust. The debris will be wrapped in thick plastic sheets. In total, it weighs about 400,000 tons (363,00 metric tons). Some Olowalu residents were worried the debris would stay in their community permanently, potentially desecrating Native Hawaiian shrines, ancient burial sites and offshore coral reefs and marine life. Most of the steel and concrete left behind by the fire was to be recycled. Much of the debris heading for the landfill is ash and small particles, which state Department of Health tests found had arsenic, lead and other toxins.
