The recent strike and killing of a pregnant fin whale by a cruise ship in the Gulf of Alaska tragically highlights decades of inaction by the federal government and shipping industry to enact reasonable measures to reduce this risk. Such whale protection measures include vessel speed reductions, or VSRs, to 10 knots or less and bow watches posted in designated whale habitat. A voluntary vessel speed reduction off California has reportedly reduced ship-whale strikes by half, while also reducing underwater noise, fuel use and harmful stack emissions.

While technological options to detect and avoid whales, such as thermal imaging infrared cameras, forward-looking sonar, sonic pingers and passive acoustic monitoring, are useful, the best way to reduce the risk of ship-whale strikes is slower speed and a posted bow watch.

Similar to speed limits for cars in school zones when children are present, ship speed reductions give both a ship crew and whales more time to detect each other and avoid a collision. They also reduce the risk of more serious or fatal injuries if a collision occurs.

We know that the number of whales actually observed killed by ships is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of total mortalities. To be detected, usually a struck whale must remain pinned across the bow of a ship and carried into port. Studies have estimated that whale mortalities unobserved offshore compared with those observed are anywhere from 7-to-1 to 25-to-1. Given the thousands of whales and ships overlapping in Alaska waters each year, it is more than likely that hundreds of whales have been struck and killed here.

It is important for the public to know the record of failure by government and industry to reduce this risk.

Beginning in 2009, I proposed to the incoming Obama administration that it enact greater protections for Unimak Pass in the eastern Aleutians and Bering Strait, including ship-whale strike reduction measures. I reiterated this specific ship-whale strike reduction request in 2013, 2018, 2021 and 2022. Each time, the federal administration declined to act.

Additionally, in 2022, I proposed directly to the Prince William Sound tanker owners that they enact voluntary speed reductions to reduce the risk of whale strikes. These huge oil tankers steam year-round directly across the paths of hundreds of whales. In June 2009, the Exxon tanker Kodiak entered Valdez with a dead humpback whale stuck on its bow.

I then proposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the PWS Regional Citizens Advisory Council that they press the tanker owners to adopt voluntary whale protection measures.

NOAA convened an informative technical workshop on the issue but declined to take any action, presenting a flawed assessment of the risk. In response to a formal scientific integrity complaint I filed with the agency, the NOAA National Appeals Office directed its Alaska staff to provide a supplemental assessment of the ship-whale strike risk in PWS that corrected some, but not all, of its previous flawed assessment. The agency continued to decline to take any action.

In July 2024, the PWSRCAC sent a letter to tanker owners asking them to consider adopting a speed reduction in PWS, which the tanker owners declined the following month, saying they would only “follow the guidance, direction, and regulations provided by NOAA/NMFS on this matter.”

In March 2023, two organizations I am associated with, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and The Ocean Foundation, submitted a proposed rulemaking to NOAA asking the agency to adopt a nationwide protocol to reduce whale strikes by ships

The petition proposes that the agency designate critical whale safety zones in all U.S. waters in which ships would be required to slow to 10 knots during the day, 8 knots in low visibility, such as nighttime, fog or heavy weather, and post bow watches to detect whales ahead. Neither the Biden nor the Trump administration responded to the petition, the latter saying earlier this year only that “NMFS is still considering the 2023 petition.”

After two suspected ship strikes on whales in Icy Strait in August 2024, I urged the Cruise Lines International Association with its 59 member companies, to adopt voluntary speed reductions and other whale-strike reduction measures in critical Alaska whale habitats. The cruise ship association ignored the request.

Again in February of this year, I urged the Cruise Lines International Association and NOAA to enter into a memorandum of agreement specifically to reduce the risk of whale strikes this summer in Alaska. In a Feb. 20 email, the cruise association responded: “In addition to specialized training for crew, cruise lines have agreed to the voluntary slowdown of vessels in sensitive areas or when marine life is observed/present. Cruise lines also use methods and technologies such as bow-positioned observers and online monitoring and reporting apps to carefully navigate in ways that are respectful and protective of marine mammals.”

When I pressed them for details on these vague, questionable assertions and reiterated our proposed memorandum of agreement between the Cruise Lines International Association and NOAA, the cruise association went silent. Later that month, NOAA’s Alaska regional director responded to the proposal: “Here in Alaska, we continue to engage with the cruise industry to reduce the risk of vessel strikes (e.g., encouraging the use of Whale Alert). Due to reduced capacity we’re quite limited in our ability to do more proactive work with the cruise industry at this time.”

After the fin whale was struck and killed by the Ovation of the Seas in the Gulf of Alaska last month, I again pressed NOAA and the Cruise Lines International Association to enter into a memorandum of agreement to reduce such risk, suggesting that important whale safety zones in Alaska waters that need strategic vessel speed reductions include at least Icy Strait, Prince William Sound, Resurrection Bay/Kenai Fjords, Unimak Pass and Bering Strait.

The cruise association has yet to respond, and NOAA’s regional director said simply that they are reviewing the situation and potential next steps.

Tragically, there is still no commitment by the shipping industry or government to address this issue in Alaska. While these same ship owners participate in voluntary whale-strike reduction measures elsewhere, they refuse to do so here in Alaska.

As these ship owners remain unwilling to remedy this voluntarily in Alaska, it is time that NOAA adopt our 2023 proposed rulemaking requiring them to reduce this risk to whales here in Alaska and across the nation.

Alaska whales, who share their ocean home with us terrestrial primates on ships, deserve nothing less.

Rick Steiner is a marine conservation biologist in Anchorage, former marine professor at the University of Alaska and board chair of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

The Arizona Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at Tuesday, July 7, 2026 results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers

02-31-35-36-63, Mega Ball: 12

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Pick 3 Evening numbers

Evening: 4-7-2

Winning Fantasy 5 numbers

03-05-10-14-37

Check Fantasy 5 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Triple Twist numbers

03-06-18-23-27-32

Check Triple Twist payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news and results

What time is the Powerball drawing?

Powerball drawings are at 7:59 p.m. Arizona time on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

How much is a Powerball lottery ticket today?

In Arizona, Powerball tickets cost $2 per game, according to the Arizona Lottery.

How to play the Powerball

To play, select five numbers from 1 to 69 for the white balls, then select one number from 1 to 26 for the red Powerball.

You can choose your lucky numbers on a play slip or let the lottery terminal randomly pick your numbers.

To win, match one of the 9 Ways to Win:

• 5 white balls + 1 red Powerball = Grand prize.
• 5 white balls = $1 million.
• 4 white balls + 1 red Powerball = $50,000.
• 4 white balls = $100.
• 3 white balls + 1 red Powerball = $100.
• 3 white balls = $7.
• 2 white balls + 1 red Powerball = $7.
• 1 white ball + 1 red Powerball = $4.
• 1 red Powerball = $4.

California’s delayed release of its Baby2Baby contract is casting a shadow over the state’s new Golden State Diaper program.

Two months after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a controversial multimillion-dollar state diaper contract with Baby2Baby, a nonprofit with existing ties to the Newsom administration and the First Partner, Californians still have not been allowed to see the contract or competitive bid records behind the deal to manufacture and deliver millions of California co-branded free diapers to new parents.

The delay comes despite repeated requests by CBS California Investigates and despite California law requiring the state to release these records. 

ALSO READ: California’s “Diapergate”: Critics got free diaper math wrong, but state won’t release key Baby2Baby records

The Newsom administration waited 24 days to decide whether it would even allow the public to see the records, but continues to delay releasing the Baby2Baby contract and competitive bid records that the governor announced more than two months ago.   

At the same time, California lawmakers are advancing legislation that would give state agencies additional time to respond to California Public Records Act requests, further extending how long the public must wait for records like these.

Delayed accountability 

CBS California Investigates requested a copy of the Baby2Baby contract on May 12, four days after Governor Newsom announced the partnership during a high-profile press conference. 

Given the controversy and misinformation surrounding the announcement, we asked the Newsom administration to forgo the formal California Public Records Act (CPRA) process and provide an expedited copy of the contract and competitive bid records. 

Both are expressly identified as public records under California law, which also requires agencies to “promptly notify” requesters whether records are disclosable, allowing a maximum of ten days to let them know the estimated date that they will provide the records. 

Instead, the Newsom Administration spent 24 days determining whether or not it would even allow Californians to see these public records, then said it would take another 42 days (if the state meets its latest deadline) to provide a copy of the contract and competitive bid records that the governor publicly announced two months ago. 

What is AB 1821?

Even as public interest grows, California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would allow agencies to further delay responses to Public Records Act requests, extending the maximum initial 10-day determination window and 14-day extension window from calendar days to business days.

State law does not limit how long an agency can wait to actually provide the records after they provide that initial response.   

ALSO READ: California State Secrets: What public officials don’t want you to know

Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco introduced Assembly Bill 1821, which originally sought to overhaul the transparency law to allow agencies to sue if they deemed a request “malicious” and charge up to $66 an hour to provide public records.   

The proposal triggered fierce pushback from a broad coalition including the First Amendment Coalition, ACLU California Action, Common Cause California, the League of Women Voters, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg, stripped the most controversial elements from the legislation before moving it forward.

“People shouldn’t have to tell us why they want that information. People shouldn’t have to pay to get information from public officials,” Umberg told CBS California. 

Still, the amended version lengthens the legal window for officials to respond to records requests. 

Pacheco maintained the necessity of the changes for burdened departments.

“Agencies across the state are experiencing a sharp increase in requests that are exceptionally broad,” she argued during testimony.

Ginny LaRoe of the First Amendment Coalition contends that essential documents, such as multimillion-dollar state contracts, should be accessible without any formal request at all.

“You should have that document in your hands. You should’ve had it in your hand the day they were talking about it,” LaRoe said.

Rather than forcing Californians to wait weeks for paper-pushing, LaRoe suggests the state should proactively upload finalized agreements online with minor necessary redactions for personal information, ensuring immediate transparency and easing the administrative burden.

Umberg signaled support for a shift toward automated disclosure.

“I think there’s a world where we make them do that,” he said. “It’s up to us to motivate them to do so.”

More than two months after Newsom’s big announcement, CBS California Investigates continues to wait for the state to release the Baby2Baby contract and the underlying bid documents.

After waiting 24 days to confirm the records were, in fact, disclosable, the state said it would need an additional 28 days to provide them. At 5:09 pm on the 28th day – Friday, July 3, a state holiday – CBS California received a presumably automated email informing us the state would need another two weeks to provide the contract the governor announced two months ago. 

Until these public records are actually public, questions will continue to mount about how this deal was reached and how competing proposals were scored.

Day 1 | May 12

CBS California Investigates requested a copy of the Baby2Baby contract four days after Governor Newsom announced the partnership during a high-profile Capitol press conference.

The Governor’s Office referred the request to the California Health and Human Services Agency. Because of the intense public interest following the announcement, CBS California Investigates asked Deputy Secretary of External Affairs Sami Gallegos and Assistant Secretary of External Affairs Rodger Butler to forgo the formal California Public Records Act (CPRA) process and simply provide an expedited copy of the highly publicized contract.

Instead, Butler directed us to the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), the agency handling the procurement. HCAI acknowledged receipt of the request.

Day 7 | May 19

CBS California Investigates followed up with the HCAI, again requesting an expedited copy of the contract because we were on a deadline.

The agency responded that the request was being processed through the California Public Records Act, rather than providing the contract directly.

Day 14 | May 22

Exactly 10 calendar days after the request, the HCAI invoked the CPRA’s “unusual circumstances” provision, extending the deadline another 14 days to determine whether the requested records were disclosable.

The agency wrote that it needed additional time because “two or more components of the agency have substantial subject matter interest” in the request.

Day 28 | June 5

Fourteen days later, the HCAI agreed that the records are public.

The agency determined that the Baby2Baby contract, procurement packet, scope of work, bid scoring sheets and vendor award documents are disclosable public records.

However, instead of releasing them, the HCAI said it would need another three to four weeks to identify and produce the records.

AB 1821 | While we waited

While CBS California Investigates waited for the records, lawmakers advanced AB 1821, legislation that originally proposed sweeping changes to California’s Public Records Act.

After bipartisan criticism and opposition from transparency advocates, many of the bill’s most controversial provisions were removed. However, the amended bill still gives agencies additional time to respond to public records requests.

Day 52 | July 3

Instead of receiving the records, CBS California Investigates received another email at 5:09 p.m. on the final day of the promised three-to-four-week production window.

Rather than releasing the records, the state delayed production another two weeks, pushing the expected release well past the two-month mark.

Day 56 and counting

Fifty-six days after CBS California Investigates requested the Baby2Baby contract, and 60 days after Governor Newsom publicly announced the partnership, Californians still have not been allowed to review:

• The executed contract
• The procurement packet
• The scope of work
• The competitive bid scoring sheets
• The vendor award documents

Translation: The Newsom administration spent 24 days determining whether records already identified as public under California law could be released. It then delayed producing those records for another six weeks. If the state meets its latest deadline, Californians will have waited 66 days from our request and 70 days from the governor’s announcement to see the contract.