BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — Kern County supervisors are exploring a proposal that would place Kern and dozens of other counties in a new state, separate from coastal California.

Kern County District 3 Supervisor Jeff Flores said the effort is about making sure the region’s industries and way of life are taken seriously by state leaders.

“So I want to use this exercise to get the attention of the lawmakers, of the governor, that Kern County matters, that our industries matter, that our way of life matters,” Flores said.

An analysis presented to the board found the proposed inland state would account for only about 15 percent of California’s current real GDP.

CSU Bakersfield economics professor Richard Gearhart said that number tells a stark story about what separation would actually mean for the region.

“If we were to secede and become our own state, would be about $500 billion with a B,” Gearhart said. “Kern County accounts for about $60 to $70 billion of that. So we would be about 1/10 of the state economy at that point. But the rest of California would be close to $3 trillion worth of GDP and we’d be cutting ourselves off from a highly educated workforce with lots of industry and those sorts of things.”

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would drop California from the fourth-largest economy in the world to roughly the 16th-largest state economy in the country — comparable to Missouri.

“We would lose a lot of economic opportunities, we would lose a lot of economic growth,” Gearhart said. “It would be essentially shooting ourselves in the foot were we to follow this through.”

Gearhart also warned the split would dramatically reduce the region’s workforce. He said inland California’s employment would fall from roughly 20 million employed people statewide to about 5 million — a reduction of approximately 13 million jobs.

“We would probably see a wave of businesses closing because they couldn’t absorb the loss of both workers and tax revenues from the state of California,” Gearhart said.

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would be left relying heavily on natural resources like agriculture and oil.

“There are no developed countries that are majority natural resource exporters, so we would be more considered to be closer towards a developing country than a developed country at that point,” Gearhart said.

He also raised the possibility of a Rust Belt-style economic decline taking hold in Central California if the split moved forward.

Gearhart warned that Kern County residents would likely face higher taxes to fund basic services.

“In the short term, we’d absolutely have to raise taxes to fund everyday amenities like schools, roads, police, firefighters—those sorts of things—and we don’t have the tax base for it,” Gearhart said.

He said that could include a new state income tax, sales taxes rising above 10 percent, and higher property taxes — all of which could accelerate population loss and further erode the tax base.

Dividing California’s existing assets, including water systems, debt, and statewide programs, would also be a massive undertaking, Gearhart said.

“It would be nearly impossible,” Gearhart said. “There would be lots of fights because existing treaties and agreements since the 1800s would be in place. So it would just be a long drawn out legal battle which would increase costs for everyday Californians.”

He said litigation alone could cost the proposed inland state several billion dollars.

Gearhart said he views the proposal as having no basis in economic analysis.

“It is solely for political theater,” Gearhart said.

Flores acknowledged the chances of an actual split are remote, saying the immediate goal is a stronger voice, not necessarily a new border.

“We want to work with California, not against California, and that goes both ways,” Flores said.

County staff will now draft a letter outlining the board’s position and look further into what a split could mean for Kern County. That letter is expected to return to supervisors at their next meeting on August 25.
Kern County supervisors are exploring a proposal that would place Kern and dozens of other counties in a new state, separate from coastal California.

Kern County District 3 Supervisor Jeff Flores said the effort is about making sure the region’s industries and way of life are taken seriously by state leaders.

“So I want to use this exercise to get the attention of the lawmakers, of the governor, that Kern County matters, that our industries matter, that our way of life matters,” Flores said.

An analysis presented to the board found the proposed inland state would account for only about 15 percent of California’s current real GDP.

CSU Bakersfield economics professor Richard Gearhart said that number tells a stark story about what separation would actually mean for the region.

“If we were to secede and become our own state, would be about $500 billion with a B,” Gearhart said. “Kern County accounts for about $60 to $70 billion of that. So we would be about 1/10 of the state economy at that point. But the rest of California would be close to $3 trillion worth of GDP and we’d be cutting ourselves off from a highly educated workforce with lots of industry and those sorts of things.”

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would drop California from the fourth-largest economy in the world to roughly the 16th-largest state economy in the country — comparable to Missouri.

“We would lose a lot of economic opportunities, we would lose a lot of economic growth,” Gearhart said. “It would be essentially shooting ourselves in the foot were we to follow this through.”

Gearhart also warned the split would dramatically reduce the region’s workforce. He said inland California’s employment would fall from roughly 20 million employed people statewide to about 5 million — a reduction of approximately 13 million jobs.

“We would probably see a wave of businesses closing because they couldn’t absorb the loss of both workers and tax revenues from the state of California,” Gearhart said.

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would be left relying heavily on natural resources like agriculture and oil.

“There are no developed countries that are majority natural resource exporters, so we would be more considered to be closer towards a developing country than a developed country at that point,” Gearhart said.

He also raised the possibility of a Rust Belt-style economic decline taking hold in Central California if the split moved forward.

Gearhart warned that Kern County residents would likely face higher taxes to fund basic services.

“In the short term, we’d absolutely have to raise taxes to fund everyday amenities like schools, roads, police, firefighters—those sorts of things—and we don’t have the tax base for it,” Gearhart said.

He said that could include a new state income tax, sales taxes rising above 10 percent, and higher property taxes — all of which could accelerate population loss and further erode the tax base.

Dividing California’s existing assets, including water systems, debt, and statewide programs, would also be a massive undertaking, Gearhart said.

“It would be nearly impossible,” Gearhart said. “There would be lots of fights because existing treaties and agreements since the 1800s would be in place. So it would just be a long drawn out legal battle which would increase costs for everyday Californians.”

He said litigation alone could cost the proposed inland state several billion dollars.

Gearhart said he views the proposal as having no basis in economic analysis.

“It is solely for political theater,” Gearhart said.

Flores acknowledged the chances of an actual split are remote, saying the immediate goal is a stronger voice, not necessarily a new border.

“We want to work with California, not against California, and that goes both ways,” Flores said.

County staff will now draft a letter outlining the board’s position and look further into what a split could mean for Kern County. That letter is expected to return to supervisors at their next meeting on August 25.

Stay in Touch with Us Anytime, Anywhere:

A newborn with a severe heart defect is at the center of a legal battle between a California couple and a surrogate who flew from Alaska to Texas to give birth in a case that has drawn the attention of anti-abortion groups and GOP leaders.

McKenna West, the surrogate, gave birth Wednesday to a boy with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening heart condition. West, who is a nurse, said the couple had wanted to end the pregnancy at 20 weeks, after consulting with doctors about the diagnosis.

The case quickly garnered national attention after Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened and a judge in Dallas ordered two hospitals to ensure they provide life-sustaining care and that the baby remain in Texas until at least a hearing in late August.

The Los Angeles-based couple, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, say West violated the surrogacy contract, and they obtained a restraining order that prevented West from seeing or holding the child after he was born, according to an attorney for the surrogate.

Ahmed and Gilkar were in Dallas, Texas, with the newborn as he receives medical care, according to the couple’s attorney. West and her supporters have called the child Gabriel, but in court filings, the couple has called the boy Rumi.

Here’s what to know about the case and surrogacy law in the U.S.

California Couple Says Surrogate Broke Their Contract

West entered an agreement with the couple through Worldwide Surrogacy Specialists, LLC in August 2025. In court documents, the couple argues that West broke a surrogacy contract and that a California court determined she has no rights to legal or physical custody of the child.

West’s lawyers have alleged the couple spent weeks pressuring West to seek an abortion after learning of the diagnosis. With legal support from the conservative Christian organization Alliance Defending Freedom, West petitioned a Dallas court to give her custody over the child two days before she gave birth.

According to court documents in Alaska, the couple claimed West agreed with the decision to end the pregnancy after the diagnosis but then changed her mind and cut off contact.

“After heartbreaking consultations with medical providers and their own research about the suffering and quality of life HLHS babies endure, A.B. and C.D. (birth parents) made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy,” a filing from the parents’ attorneys reads. “It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment.”

Other court documents show the couple at one point chose to have West deliver in California and their child begin lifelong treatment from there.

“West is harming Rumi by relocating to Texas, requiring him to be born in Texas, away from his parents and the specialized cardiac team in Los Angeles that will provide his lifelong care,” the court filing states. “Her actions are forcing Rumi to begin treatment (including critical heart surgery) in one state and be transferred to another.”

Republican Officials Have Rallied in Support of the Surrogate

Live Action, an anti-abortion group based in Arlington, Virginia, paid for West and her two children to fly to Texas, which bans abortion, to seek medical care, according to Noah Brandt, a spokesperson for the group.

Days before West gave birth, Paxton said his office was intervening in the case to “protect baby Gabriel’s life” by notifying UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center of Dallas of legal obligations to provide life-saving care, and accused Gilkar and Ahmed of refusing to consent to life-saving surgery for the heart issue.

The couple has denied those claims and their attorney, Lee Budner, accused Paxton of turning a family tragedy into “political theater.”

The couple’s “worst fear,” Ahmed wrote in court filings, was that West “may try to keep our child from us after she gives birth to him.”

Surrogacy Law Across the US Is Vague and Varies by State

Surrogacy isn’t regulated on a federal level and each state has its own laws, which can leave room for gaps in interpretation, experts say.

Maya Shulman, a California attorney and professor who has worked on surrogacy cases for more than 15 years, said she rarely sees cases like this. She emphasized the importance of contracts in surrogacy agreements, adding that many have ironclad details about termination and thorough details about what’s entailed.

A surrogate is not a parent, Shulman said, and in this case, the baby’s health had to be considered.

“You need to think about the quality of life for the baby,” Shulman said in reference to the heart defect.

In California where she practices, a court would likely honor the surrogacy contract, Shulman said, recognizing the couple as the parents with custody of the child.

The Baby’s Heart Defect Requires Multiple Surgeries

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome is a condition where one side of the heart is underdeveloped and prevents normal blood flow. If untreated, the condition causes severe symptoms such as trouble breathing, skin rashes, weak pulse and ashen or bluish skin.

The condition requires a set of three surgeries. The initial surgery, the Norwood procedure, is usually done within days or weeks of birth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only about 925 babies in the U.S. are born with HLHS each year, according to the CDC.

Without treatment, children affected by the heart defect can die within days or weeks. Surgical repairs are not necessarily cures, and additional surgeries or heart transplants may be needed, according to the CDC.

• An Oxnard-based oil company proposed fracking wells at Platform Gilda.
• The platform sits nearly 9 miles off the Ventura County coast.
• The commission voted no, saying the proposal was inconsistent with coastal protection policies.

The California Coastal Commission voted “no” on an Oxnard-based oil company’s proposal for a fracking operation at Platform Gilda, off the Ventura County coast.

The commission met in Santa Cruz on Aug. 13 and considered whether plans for fracking up to 16 wells over five years would be consistent with the state’s coastal protection policies. DCOR LLC had sought such a determination, part of the process to move forward with the fracking program at the platform, nearly 9 miles off Ventura. Commissioners cited factors from the risk of an oil spill to aging equipment in their decision.

The fracking operations could increase oil production from 1,100 barrels per day to 4,000 barrels, or 168,000 gallons, per day, officials said.

The oil company said the increased production would support the national interest in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. But others said that any oil produced would have minimal impacts on energy markets and the practices could put fisheries, wildlife and coastal areas in jeopardy.

The platform sits in the Santa Barbara Channel, an area considered among the most biologically productive marine environments along the California coast, officials said. The nearby Channel Islands and surrounding waters are home to kelp forests, rocky reefs, fisheries and protected wildlife, and area beaches and coasts include popular recreation and tourist destinations.

At the hearing, a company representative told commissioners that DCOR believed its proposal was consistent with state policies and needed in the interest of national security. The company started discussions early on with commission staff.