All across California, schools and agencies, cities and counties, universities and public facilities are building and rebuilding budgets, trying to anticipate the final result of a legislative process still under way.

This annual dance of chaos and resolution, the mad scramble for the last available dollar, leaves no room for the kind of thoughtful, strategic planning necessary to solve problems for the long term. In fact, the annual budget process pits institutions against one another in the fight for funding when, to resolve long-term issues, they really need to work together.

One such problem looming on the horizon is the lack of space in California's system of higher education for the over 1.3 million additional students between 2003 and 2013 who will qualify for, and will expect to attend, one of the three pieces of California's higher-education system: the University of California, the California State University or the California Community College system.

This new group of college students, known as "Tidal Wave II," has been anticipated for some time but is now beginning to hit. This could not happen at a worse time, as tight budgets lead to no-growth funding for the CSU and UC system, exacerbating the problem. Much as it may seem the contrary, this is not primarily a budget question. This is, at its very core, a policy question.

In 2000, the California Postsecondary Education Commission stated: "At the outset of the 21st century, California faces the certainty of phenomenal demographic growth and change. ... Policy makers will be challenged in every quarter to anticipate and respond to these conditions. Decisions made today will shape the lives of all Californians tomorrow. Nowhere is that challenge greater, or the stakes higher in terms of sustaining the state's future, than in higher education."

Unfortunately, the state's now almost legendary budget crisis has effectively drowned out policy debate. In addition, the budget has moved forward the impact of Tidal Wave II because funding reductions have already reduced the number of students in the higher education system.

Who should care? Whose debate should this be? Clearly this issue has ramifications for the state's businesses. An economy as big and as complex as California's demands a skilled work force. Labor market data indicates that the percentage of jobs requiring some postsecondary education

or training will hit 83 percent in the next 10 years. Yet, if the promise of higher education is diminished, it seems logical that efforts to achieve increased success in high school preparation will be dramatically undercut.

This phenomenon would chip away at the quality of the state's work force and at the competitiveness of the state's businesses.

This is also an issue for families. Nationally, college graduates earn, on average, $1 million more in their working lives than those with a high school education alone. The opportunity to attend higher education has a dramatic impact on family economic security.

This is an issue for taxpayers, even those without family members who might attend California's system of higher education. It is unlikely that a weakened higher education system will ultimately cost less; rather, it will shift state expenditures to counter those problems associated with a lack of education such as poverty and crime.

The 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education put California out in front of the nation with the promise that any student who wanted to pursue a college education would have access to a public college or university. Will we now, without debate, abandon a policy that has helped to build this state and its economy into the envy of much of the world? The answer remains unclear. What is certain is that the timeframe to address this is limited. California has a budget crisis which certainly must be addressed. California also has a policy crisis that is as far-reaching and as urgent.

Casey Crabill is president of College of the Redwoods.