I doubt anyone will argue that officers aren't owed a reasonably large salary in exchange for their training, the risks they take and their accumulated experience.
However, it is unreasonable to be giving near 100% raises over 2 year periods like we see in this data. In these cases, they are obviously gaming the system to increase their pension payouts. This is an unintended consequence of basing pension payouts on the salary of a person's last year of employment.
As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it's very difficult to become a highway patrol officer. Just getting into the academy is hard to do. But apparently once you're in, you're set for life with a decent salary and these last-year-pay-raise games to make sure you have an unreasonably large pension as well. Artificially limiting the supply of officers in this way allows them to spread their budget over fewer people at the expensive of a smaller force.
In this system, Californians lose out not only on tax dollars that go to artificially inflated pensions, but with a smaller number of on-duty officers as well. If anything, this sounds like corruption to me.