Torrential rains over the holiday weekend have left Humboldt County reeling, with several roads flood-damaged and impassable, and more rain is on the way.
“The storm came and hit us hard on Saturday,” said Thomas Mattson, the county public works director. He said his agency had been working round the clock to repair washed-out roads that had left some residents stranded.
In Redwood Valley, off Highway 299, flooding from the Mad River damaged both main access roads Saturday, cutting off residents from outside aid. The 113-mile river flows northwest through the county and the rural unincorporated community. Repairs to the roads were not expected to be completed until late Wednesday.
Eureka’s daily newspaper the Times-Standard reported that at least 30 households were struggling with flooded homes and power outages amid dwindling supplies and no way to access help.
During an eight-hour stretch Saturday, 2 to 5 inches of rain fell throughout Humboldt County, according to Tyler Jewel, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s Eureka office. The community of Whitethorn recorded nearly 8 inches of rainfall.
“It’s a very small watershed,” Jewel said. “This last storm just happened to dump a ton of rain there. … It’s really rare for that river to flood.”
Mattson said the county’s public works crews had reopened 15 flooded roads since Saturday but were still dealing with half a dozen that sustained serious damage.
Ryan Derby, emergency services manager with the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, said there had been “county-wide flooding” over the last several days. The agency declared a local state of emergency Tuesday to expedite emergency repairs and state and federal aid.
Derby said flooding from the Mad River affected Tyee City and other agricultural land in that area, along with parts of Mad River Road, or what’s locally known as the “Arcata Bottom.”
Small creeks and streams overflowed into the Blue Lake area, not far from the Blue Lake Rancheria tribal land, about a 10-minute drive from Arcata.
Other flooding stretched from Hoopa in the north down to Shelter Cove in the southwestern tip of the county along the coast.
Some of the affected areas are “sparsely populated,” Derby said, and no evacuation orders were issued, though some residents fled during the rainstorms on Saturday. No deaths or injuries have been reported.
County officials are still assessing how much damage was caused by the rain so far, Derby added, and they will meet Thursday to discuss the situation and this weekend’s expected rain. Derby said the county is referring affected residents to the Red Cross at (800) 733-2767.
Derby said the storms caused damage to county roads and culverts, and with more rain set to arrive Friday, he worries that additional flooding could interfere with recovery efforts.
“It’s not anticipated to be as severe,” he said of the rain forecast. “But there could be compounding factors with the incoming storm that pose additional issues.”
Forecasts indicate 2 to 3 inches of rainfall are expected throughout Humboldt County — though the King mountain range in the southwest could receive up to 5 inches — between Friday and Monday, with the first wave of rainfall arriving Friday morning through Saturday morning and the second from Saturday night until Monday afternoon.
Higher rainfall amounts of 4 to 6 inches were expected throughout Mendocino County south of Humboldt, with both the Russian and Navarro rivers having the potential to flood, Jewel said.
Now that St. Nick has delivered his Christmas gifts, it’s your job to toss the discarded wrapping paper, cardboard boxes and ribbons and vacuum up the tinsel scattered around the house.
As for the wilting yuletide pine that has been shedding needles for days, you have several options for disposing of it.
Fire officials warn that dry Christmas trees can pose a fire hazard so don’t put off your disposal chore for too long.
Within the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment is offering curbside collection for Christmas tree recycling through the end of January, according to the city’s website.
Several options are available for scheduling a pickup, such as creating a ticket on the MYLA311 website, submitting a ticket request on the L.A. Sanitation and Environment homepage, or calling the 24-hour customer service line at (800) 773-2489.
Before your tree can be hauled away, the sanitation department requires the removal of all decorations, tinsel and stands. Additionally, you need to cut the trees into pieces, place them in the green bin and set them out for regular collection on trash day.
Residents of multifamily buildings can place trees on the curb for regularly scheduled collection days.
The city will not accept artificial trees and trees layered in fake snow for recycling. If your tree is covered in fake snow, you should put it in the black trash can designated for landfill disposal.
The city’s sanitation department uses recycled Christmas trees to produce compost and mulch, which residents can obtain for free.
If you want to drop off your tree for mulching, the city offers two locations.
The Gaffey Street SAFE Center at 1400 N. Gaffey St. in San Pedro will accept trees from Jan. 2 to Jan. 31, Monday through Sunday, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Lopez Canyon Environmental Education Center in Lake View Terrace will accept trees on the same dates and hours.
The Los Angeles Fire Department urges people to immediately remove and recycle natural trees. The department warns that dry Christmas needles can turn a small fire into an inferno in less than 7 seconds.
In addition to the mulching facilities, you can also drop your trees off at 13 Los Angeles city fire department stations until Jan. 12. Participating stations include:
108 N. Fremont Ave., 90012 — Civic Center / Bunker Hill
1192 E. 51st St., 90011 — South Los Angeles
11641 Corbin Ave., 91326 — Porter Ranch
4029 Wilshire Blvd., 90010 — Hancock Park
1005 N. Gaffey St., 90731 — North San Pedro
1410 Cypress Ave., 90065 — Cypress Park
10811 S. Main St., 90061 — South Los Angeles
1801 E. Century Blvd., 90002 — Watts
9224 Sunland Blvd., 91352 — Sun Valley
14355 Arminta St., 91402 — Panorama City
5101 N. Sepulveda Blvd., 91403 — Sherman Oaks
4470 Coliseum St., 90016 — South Los Angeles
23004 Roscoe Blvd., 91304 — West Hills
Several L.A. recreation centers and parks will also offer a one-day drop-off event on Jan. 7, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The locations include: the Los Angeles Zoo parking lot; the Rancho Cienega Recreation Center in Baldwin Hills; the Balboa Sports Center in Encino; the Cheviot Hills Recreation Center in Rancho Park; Sunland Park near Sun Valley; and the Westchester Municipal Building near the Los Angeles International Airport.
Long Beach
The Long Beach Public Works Department is offering its annual “Treecycling” disposal program for residents until Jan. 12. The city has a dozen free drop-off locations available Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on the weekends from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
If you are unable to drop off your old tree, the city will pick up it for one day only on Jan. 13. Long Beach residents must place their trees on the curb by 7 a.m.
Don’t forget to remove all decorations and stands and cut any tree over 12 feet in half. Flocked trees will be accepted.
Santa Monica
Santa Monica’s holiday tree collection will run until Jan. 31. The city advises residents to place bare trees on the curbside or alleys ready for pickup and to avoid placing trees in parking lots or parks. Calling 311 is not necessary for tree pickup.
Pasadena
Pasadena offers curbside pickup for bare trees to all solid waste customers on their regularly scheduled trash days from Jan. 2 to Jan. 16.
If you prefer to drop off your Christmas trees, locations are open daily from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Eaton Blanche Park and Robinson Park until Jan. 2.
Newport Beach
Residents of Newport Beach have until Jan. 15 to place their cut-up trees in the green recycling bins. The local sanitation company, CR&R Environmental Services, requests that all ornaments, tinsel, lights and tree stands be removed.
Artificial trees and those with fake snow should be placed in black trash bins in Newport Beach, as they will not be recycled.
Laguna Beach
In Laguna Beach, Waste Management will for the next three weeks collect and recycle holiday trees. Trees taller than 6 feet must be cut in half and placed on the curb during a regular collection day.
Waste Management transports the trees to Tierra Verde Industries in Irvine for composting.
A potentially dangerous device that uses radiation went missing last week, but was found Monday and returned to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
The agency had issued a $1,000 reward over the weekend for information that could lead to the recovery of the device, which could cause radiation poisoning if damaged or mishandled.
The device was last seen around 4 p.m. Thursday in the back of a county truck near 110th Street East and Avenue R-4 in the unincorporated Antelope Valley community of Littlerock.
Public Works described the device as a thin layer density gauge, which is used during construction to measure soil and asphalt density.
On Monday afternoon, a resident contacted the office of Supt. Kathryn Barger, whose district includes Littlerock, to report they had found an item that matched the description of the device. Public Works crews were dispatched to the address and recovered the tool, determining it had not been damaged, according to agency spokesman Kerjon Lee.
“We’re thrilled that it’s been returned,” Lee said.
In a statement, Barger said she urged Public Works to report a corrective action plan to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors to prevent this from happening in the future.
“It’s a big relief to know that no one was hurt by radiation sickness in the process of recovering it,” Barger said. “However, this cannot happen again.”
As the two traded barbs over who was a “lockdown governor,” DeSantis crowed about his state reopening quickly and said: “In fact, the Lancet just did a study: Florida had a lower standardized COVID death rate than California did” when adjusted for how Florida’s population skews older and has higher rates of underlying illness, such as cancer and heart disease.
With that adjustment, Florida ranks as having the 12th-lowest standardized death rate nationally among states, compared to the 14th-highest raw death rate.
Some critics of the tough public health measures implemented in many states in response to the pandemic have seized on that finding as proof that strict practices such as stay-at-home orders, masking, limited vaccine mandates and social distancing weren’t needed to control COVID-19.
But the study’s lead author says that’s the wrong takeaway.
“If [DeSantis] is using the study as an example to support the message that masks, or staying at home, or vaccines did not matter in this pandemic, then that would be using the study inappropriately — because that is not what it shows,” said Thomas J. Bollyky, director of the global health program at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank.
“The governor aggressively promoted those behaviors early. And the reality is even when he started to turn away from those behaviors in 2021, Floridians continued to adopt them, and at rates that exceeded the national average,” Bollyky said in an interview.
Through mid-2022, Floridians ranked in the top half of states in vaccine coverage and mask use, and in the top quartile of states for reduced mobility (how often people stayed home compared to pre-pandemic times).
Mobility statistics came from four sources of cellphone GPS data, which was used to calculate daily mobility relative to before the pandemic.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, standing in mask, right, watches as a COVID-19 vaccine dose is administered at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami on Jan. 4, 2021.
(Wilfredo Lee / Associated Press)
In a follow-up analysis written by Bollyky and two co-authors on the website Think Global Health, there are several explanations as to why Florida did comparatively well relative to other states. Among them: The state “adopted early aggressive nursing home policies, testing, and gathering restrictions to slow the spread of the virus — at a higher rate than even most states led by Democratic governors — and promoted vaccination among the elderly.”
“Early on in the pandemic, the governor was quite aggressive trying to reach out to the elderly population about the need to be cautious,” Bollyky said. “And those messages took hold.”
The analysis — which covered the period from the start of the pandemic through the end of July 2022 — found that Florida’s early policies encouraged residents to continue to stay home, get vaccinated and wear masks at a higher rate than most other states, even after health mandates were lifted.
Among the strict steps DeSantis undertook, the analysis said, was isolating COVID patients in nursing homes and banning visitors; closing schools in March 2020 and keeping them shut for the rest of the academic year; and telling residents to avoid gatherings that could turn into super-spreader events.
People wearing masks walk toward Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in January 2021. Florida was one of the first states to throw open vaccine eligibility to members of the general public over 65.
(Lynne Sladky / Associated Press)
“DeSantis was one of only four governors to reopen schools in the fall of 2020, but Florida was still otherwise slower to lift gathering restrictions and bar and restaurant closures than most Republican-led states,” the analysis said.
And DeSantis was an early champion of COVID-19 vaccines for seniors, saying in January 2021, “we want the shots to go in the arms.” That’s at odds with his latest denigration, suggesting Floridians who got the recently updated vaccinations were “guinea pigs” for “shots that have not been proven to be safe or effective,” despite strong evidence to the contrary from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
News articles in late 2021 noted efforts by some local governments and residents to take precautions, including masking up. Miami-Dade County officials ordered county employees to either get vaccinated or submit to regular testing in response to the Delta wave in mid-2021. Public schools in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties had mask mandates in place through November 2021.
During the first Omicron wave in late 2021, jury trials were paused in Miami-Dade County courts, and some concert promoters canceled events.
Health-cautious behaviors persisted among a number of Floridians even as, between the Delta and initial Omicron surges in 2021, DeSantis moved to prohibit vaccine mandates and strike down mask mandates.
In one notable example of the change in approach, the governor scolded students for wearing face masks during an indoor news conference in early 2022. “You do not have to wear those masks. I mean, please take them off. Honestly, it’s not doing anything. And we’ve got to stop with this COVID theater. So if you wanna wear it, fine, but this is ridiculous,” DeSantis told them. Some students took them off, while others kept them on.
In early 2021, DeSantis began emphasizing a “medical freedom” agenda, the analysis noted, with his appointed surgeon general later defying federal recommendations and discouraging COVID-19 vaccinations. The analysis found Florida’s rates of overall vaccinations for schoolchildren fell to a 10-year low, and flu shot uptake for adults fell during the pandemic, even as they rose nationally.
“If these trends persist and extend to other public health measures, the state will be less safe,” the report said.
During last autumn and winter — a period not covered by the Lancet study — COVID-19 booster rates among Florida’s seniors lagged badly. As of late spring, only 31% had received the updated shot, below the national rate of 43%, and California’s rate of 48%.
Complicating any comparison between Florida and California, however, is the multiple number of ways to calculate COVID death rates.
There’s the crude death rate, to which Newsom alluded during the Nov. 30 televised faceoff with DeSantis. He said Florida had a 29% worse per capita death rate compared to California. A spokesperson later said that’s based on statistics from the CDC’s online COVID Data Tracker, which lists 110,208 deaths for California and 81,238 for Florida.
When adjusted for population — 39 million for California and 22 million for Florida, per U.S. Census estimates in mid-2022 — the rates equal 365.2 COVID deaths for every 100,000 Florida residents and 282.4 COVID deaths for every 100,000 California residents.
There are also age-adjusted statistics, which account for the fact that California’s population is relatively younger demographically than Florida’s. According to the CDC, Florida has an age-adjusted rate of 253 deaths per 100,000 residents, nominally higher than California’s 249 deaths per 100,000 residents.
For 2021 — the deadliest calendar year of the pandemic nationally — the agency calculates Florida’s age-adjusted death rate at 111.7 for every 100,000 residents, about 12% worse than California’s.
But then there is the Lancet study’s standardized rate cited by DeSantis, which was adjusted not only for age, but also for how Florida has higher rates of chronic illness. By that metric, Florida had a rate of 313 deaths per 100,000 residents — California’s was 34% worse, at 418 per 100,000 residents.
Some contend that California’s pandemic policy was based in science and saved many lives; others assert Florida did a better job without curtailing rights; and still others say it’s foolhardy to compare the two, given vast differences that politicians and policymakers had no control over.
In some camps, the narrative has become: “Florida did better than you might expect overall, but they did badly on vaccination when the Delta wave came up,” Bollyky said. But even that more nuanced take doesn’t provide a complete picture, he said.
“Our study covered 2½ years. So to say [Florida] did bad for a three-month period of time of that is like saying they didn’t do well in the sixth inning, but did pretty well overall in the game,” Bollyky said. “That’s true, but also doesn’t really get at what the Florida story should be telling people — which is … that [officials] did their work early, and then the population continued to do its work.
“And in some ways, the governor has failed to give himself credit for what he did early — for political reasons, presumably — and failed to give Floridians credit for what they did throughout the pandemic.”
The original Lancet study also rebuts the perception that states that prioritized lives did so by sacrificing the economy and education. Virtually all states — whether led by Republicans or Democrats — instituted health mandates in the first months of the pandemic, Bollyky said. The big divide occurred after the Delta wave hit in summer 2021, when Democratic-leaning states were more likely to impose new pandemic policies.
Notably, the Lancet study did not find any association between a higher or lower state gross domestic product and higher or lower coronavirus infections or deaths.
“With the exception of restaurant closures, none of the policy mandates that we studied — stay-at-home orders, gathering restrictions, school closures, gym or pool closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates — were associated with lower GDP or employment at the state level,” Bollyky said.
In terms of the overall strength of the economy, “there was no choice between public health and the economy to be made. At least that’s not what our data shows,” Bollyky said. “You don’t see some nationwide association between ‘lockdown’ and ‘free’ states and better economies.”
The pandemic coincided with declines in U.S. educational performance, the Lancet study said, but the data analyzed don’t indicate learning losses were systematically associated with primary school closures at the state level.
“California, a state with long school closures during the pandemic, had test score declines similar to or smaller than those in Florida and Maine, states with low rates of school closures,” the study said.
After a years-long neighborhood battle against an oil drilling site in South Los Angeles, a local nonprofit has purchased the now-demolished facility and plans to transform it into a park, community center and affordable housing.
The Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust recently bought the 1.86-acre dirt lot on Jefferson Boulevard for nearly $10 million from Sentinel Peak Resources. The nonprofit and its partners are now seeking grants and other funding sources to pay for planning, remediation and project execution.
“It’s what we hoped for,” Richard Parks, president of the South L.A. nonprofit Redeemer Community Partnership, said of the purchase. “It’s just so amazing to see our community receiving beauty for ashes. It’s overwhelming and feels like such a blessing.”
The sale marks a new chapter in a persistent and community-led fight against the oil drilling site, which residents argued for years was noisy and spewed foul odors. It also comes at a time of growing concerns about the risks and inequities of urban drilling in neighborhoods. L.A. City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky recently introduced legislation aiming to address public health and environmental threats posed by a drill site near the Pico-Robertson area.
Oil wells are known to emit carcinogens such as benzene and formaldehyde, and living near wells is associated with health problems such as respiratory issues and preterm births, studies have found.
Community leaders hope the purchase serves as a model for how to repurpose shuttered fossil fuel facilities as the city phases out existing oil and gas wells, a historic move approved last year by the L.A. City Council that also bans new oil and gas extraction.
Tori Kjer, executive director of the L.A. Neighborhood Land Trust, believes it is critical that these sites are transformed into uses that benefit communities historically affected by oil drilling. “It’s an environmental justice issue,” she said. It’s also imperative that planned site uses won’t displace residents through gentrification, she added.
“It’s so important, this idea of joint development, where you’re layering in affordable housing, community space and a park together,” she said. “For us, it’s really the ideal approach to equitable development in communities. … This is a rare opportunity, and an important opportunity, as we think bigger scale about future types of development in Los Angeles.”
Kjer estimates they will need three to six months and about $600,000 for remediation planning, and an additional year and $2 million to $3 million for cleanup. They are seeking state grants. The park’s budget will be about $6 million.
Lori R. Gay, president and chief executive of the Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County, said their target is to build 70 affordable housing units. They are also considering creating a community land trust to preserve the neighborhood and produce new homeowners.
After a years-long neighborhood battle against an oil drilling site in South L.A., a local nonprofit has purchased the now-demolished facility and plans to transform it into a park, community center and affordable housing.
(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
“The Jefferson site is in a homeownership community, so we wanted to maintain both the integrity and culture of the community with affordable homeownership,” she said. “It is too easy to just build affordable housing focused on tenancy and not provide the opportunity to build generational wealth. This development provides the opportunity to build wealth for generations to come.”
But the grand visions for the property won’t come without hurdles.
Finding land trust lenders will be challenging, Gay said, as will plan reviews and significant market changes that could hinder the speed of development. Having multiple partners involved in a large project could also further complicate it, Kjer added. Planning, remediation and raising and finding finances will also be tricky.
“The housing kind of funds itself, and we have some really good prospects for funding the park through different grants, but the community center I think will be a very big challenge,” Parks said. “How do we raise the several million dollars to be able to build that out for the community?”
First approved nearly 60 years ago, the South L.A. oil site on West Jefferson Boulevard and Van Buren Place was situated closer to homes than any other city drilling facility, according to the nonprofit Community Health Councils.
In 2013, environmental justice advocates with Redeemer Community Partnership began organizing after the oil company requested permits by the city of Los Angeles to drill three new wells.
Parks remembered knocking on residents’ doors and hearing concerning stories about the nearby oil facility: One woman was sprayed with oil while she watered her front lawn. The noxious smells of diesel exhaust and petroleum fumes permeated through a toddler’s room even with the windows closed. Others complained of headaches and nosebleeds, and miscarriages were commonplace, he recalled.
A report by a petroleum administrator, who was hired in 2016 to oversee oil and gas operations in the city, noted that the Jefferson Boulevard facility was classified as having hydrogen sulfide gas, which can give off a rotten-eggs odor and cause smell loss, and that chemicals such as benzene have also been emitted from the site.
A group of community members who were involved in the fight against the Jefferson Boulevard oil drilling site stand on the demolished facility.
(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
In 2017, after persistent demands from community activists to enclose the site, L.A. City Council members issued a set of stringent rules that oil companies must follow if they wanted to continue operating drilling sites next to homes in South L.A.
The requirements included, among other things, that drilling equipment be permanently closed off by a 45-foot-tall structure to reduce noise, odors and block glaring lights. It was a big victory for community activists, who had argued that the site exemplified the toxic outcomes of oil drilling in urban neighborhoods.
Officials at the time described the requirements as the toughest ever imposed on a drill site in L.A.
Newsletter
Get the lowdown on L.A. politics
Sign up for our L.A. City Hall newsletter to get weekly insights, scoops and analysis.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Sentinel Peak Resources spurned the commands and filed a lawsuit. The company argued that the new mandates were “unduly oppressive” and would force it to reduce or stop its operations.
Nearly a year later, the company announced it would shutter the site for good.
While it removed all oil operating equipment and capped the 36 wells on site, the community began working on a shared vision for the site’s future.
“Because we knew if we did not do that, that the toxic violence of oil extraction would be replaced by the violence of displacement,” Parks said. “Developers are coming in, they’re tearing down homes, they’re building up student housing, they’re driving out longtime residents, and we didn’t want to see that happen.”
With help from California Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who is running for L.A. City Council District 10, they secured a $10-million state grant for those efforts.
“I’m really excited,” Jones-Sawyer said. “This will be the blueprint for how you can effectively make changes.”
When Redeemer Community Partnership contacted him about their vision for the land, “it seemed like the perfect combination of dealing with our housing crisis and dealing with our crisis with having no open space. And so when I had the opportunity to provide the $10 million … it seemed like a wonderful opportunity,” Jones-Sawyer said.
For residents such as Corissa Pacillas, who fought for years for more stringent protections from the Jefferson Boulevard site, the purchase exemplifies the power of organizing.
“It was encouraging to see that when people really intentionally organize and speak up, and are persistent … passionate and have good leadership … that change can happen,” said Pacillas, who spent years documenting the facility’s activities from the porch of her second-floor apartment. “I’m just so excited that the property … is going to go toward really benefiting the community.”
With flu season in full swing, Riverside County public health officials are urging residents to get their vaccines and to take other precautions against respiratory viruses after reporting the county’s first two flu-related deaths this winter.
The deaths include a 73-year-old man and a 79-year-old woman from mid- and western Riverside County, respectively. Both had underlying health issues and died at local hospitals, according to county officials. No further information was immediately provided.
Last month, Los Angeles County confirmed its first flu death of the season. The deceased was an elderly resident with multiple underlying conditions and had no record of influenza vaccination this season, according to county health officials.
According to Riverside County’s weekly influenza surveillance report, current influenza-like illnesses activity levels are moderate in the area. The county typically logs people aged 65 and older as the bulk of pneumonia and influenza deaths in the county with few occurring among those 24 and younger. Data collected between Nov. 19-25 show pneumonia contributed to the bulk of deaths, which were largely affected by other diseases such as COVID-19.
“These tragedies remind us that influenza can be serious, especially for those who have health issues or weakened immune systems,” Dr. Geoffrey Leung, public health officer for Riverside County, said in a statement. “There are simple steps that can be taken to protect ourselves. Most important of these is to get vaccinated. We recommend that everyone over 6 months of age receive the flu vaccine.”
Respiratory viruses such as the flu and COVID-19 spread year-round but are more common in the United States between October and March. The virus is spread through coughing and sneezing. Anyone is prone to catch the virus but elderly people, children and those with weakened immune systems are more at risk.
Health officials urge people to stay up-to-date on vaccines, remain at home if sick, consider wearing a face mask, cover a cough or sneeze and wash hands throughout the day.
Over the next two decades, Los Angeles County will collect billions more gallons in water from local sources, especially storm and reclaimed water, shifting from its reliance on other region’s water supplies as the effects of climate change make such efforts less reliable and more expensive.
The L.A. County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted the county’s first water plan, which outlines how America’s largest county must stop importing 60% of its water and pivot over the next two decades to sourcing 80% of its water locally by 2045.
The plan calls for increasing local water supply by 580,000 acre-feet per year by 2045 through more effective stormwater capture, water recycling and conservation. The increase would be roughly equivalent to 162 billion gallons, or enough water for 5 million additional county residents, county leaders said.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
“We need to conserve every drop of water possible for beneficial reuse by reducing demand, by recycling our water, by capturing much more stormwater in our natural aquifers. And I know that the public is watching to make sure we do exactly that,” said Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath. “As climate change makes our important water resources less reliable and more expensive, I would like to see the majority of our stormwater be diverted for beneficial reuse rather than washed out to the ocean where it pollutes our coast.”
The development of the county’s water plan started in 2019 when former L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl authored a motion that created the county’s sustainability plan and paved the wave for a water plan.
Horvath, her successor, closed the loop Tuesday on her first day as board chair with her motion to implement the plan. At 41, Horvath is the youngest person to serve as board chair.
Mark Pestrella, L.A. County Department of Public Works director, said pivoting the county from a long history of importing water “is aspirational, but it is actually achievable.”
There are at least 200 independent water districts or agencies in L.A. County responsible for delivering safe, clean water, and Pestrella said the plan was aimed at fostering collaboration.
In 2020, the county asked each for input and also held 90 stakeholder meetings over three years with local and tribal leaders, community members and advocate groups, Pestrella said.
Most of the 200 agencies are on record agreeing to adopt the county water plan.
“For years, we’ve been basically letting each of those any one or a number of those water agencies sort of lead the way or actually just act individually in the interest of the county of Los Angeles,” Pestrella said. The water plan however “has brought all those people together saying what makes sense for this region in terms of our best and highest use of our water.”
The plan will focus on a number of goals: improving the reliability of the region’s water supply; collecting and storing groundwater; increasing the quality and resilience of small systems that are at risk of failing; mitigating the impact of wildfires on the water supply and managing watershed sediment.
The county’s water plan, Pestrella said, also sets the county up to be more competitive in applying for state and federal money.
Environmental advocacy groups, such as Heal The Bay and the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded Tuesday’s move.
“I think I (was in) the very first stakeholder group when this was first formed, and at that time, I admit I was very skeptical of the effort,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of watchdog group L.A. Waterkeeper. However, he said, the county listened to stakeholders and developed a “a plan I think we can all be really proud of.”
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, whose Fifth District includes Antelope Valley, said L.A. County is mandated by the state to build 90,000 more housing units by 2029 and asked how the plan incorporates that mandate.
Pestrella said it’s built into the plan, but it will require conservation as “an absolute way of life for us to not only maintain our current water supply but to meet the demands you’re describing.”
The supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting stressed how important it was that all residents have access to clean water.
Of the 200-plus water agencies in L.A. County, 11 are failing, 23 are at risk of failing, and 33 are potentially at risk of failing, according to the county water plan. Many of these systems provide water to low-income communities.
Pestrella said the purpose of the plan is not to call out and punish these systems — the state regulates water systems, not the county — but to instead of bring them into the fold and give them resources to improve their systems.
“Full immunity — come out and tell us what your needs are, work with us, don’t hide the problem, put it on the table, there’s actually help,” Pestrella said. “In their defense, I’m sure in the past they’ve asked for help, and they don’t get the help they need.”
Supervisor Hilda L. Solis said there must be standards that everyone follows.
The water quality for some residents in the First District, Solis said, which includes East L.A. and many factories, is “least to be desired,” whether that is because of old systems that need to be maintained or because of illegal discharge from industrial areas.
Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell agreed, highlighting residents of Compton and Willowbrook who for years dealt with “putrid groundwater that they paid top dollar for” from the failed Sativa Water District, which suffered poor maintenance and mismanagement. The county’s Department of Public Works assumed full control after the district was dissolved in 2019.
“That shouldn’t happen anywhere,” Mitchell said. “And the regional program that’s being proposed in this plan to identify and support the small potentially at-risk and failing systems will be instrumental in ensuring that nothing like Sativa happens again.”
“I am pleased to inform the public that the final hotspot at the Navy Hangar Fire has been extinguished,” Steve Dohman, Orange County’s All-Hazards Incident Management Team incident commander, said in a statement. “With all hotspots now declared out, the work to safely lower the hangar doors can begin, and the Navy can start removing debris from its site.”
An 80-year-old relic of Orange County’s military history, the massive 17-story wooden hangar became an environmental nightmare as the fire reignited several times, forcing the closure of nearby schools and shuttering residents inside their homes as the blaze released asbestos, lead and other toxins into the air.
As of Friday, officials estimated that cleanup of nearby schools, parks, open space and public rights of way was 90% complete and that more than 50% of residential properties have been inspected with 35% cleared.
Local officials advised residents who are concerned about debris to contact a certified asbestos contractor and their homeowners insurance company.
“The residents and businesses in the area who have been impacted by this fire now need the full accountability of the Navy and the support of the Governor’s Office and FEMA to help our City and our community financially recover,” Tustin Mayor Austin Lumbard said in a statement.
The north hangar was one of two massive wooden structures used by the military during World War II and later served as sets for the TV show “Star Trek” and the film “Pearl Harbor.” The hangars once housed military helicopters and blimps armed with machine guns and bombs.
A tow truck driver who police allege was under the influence crashed into multiple vehicles and then overturned the truck early Friday morning, just blocks from the closed stretch of the 10 Freeway.
The crash, which occurred around 2:40 a.m. on Griffith Avenue between the Fashion District and Historic South Central, caused significant damage to vehicles and ended with the tow truck upside-down and in flames in the middle of the street.
The tow truck collided with a vehicle going in the opposite direction, said Annie Moran, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson.
“The tow truck overturned and that’s when both vehicles crashed into multiple vehicles,” she said, noting that at least 13 parked vehicles were hit.
In video captured by a security camera and provided to OnScene, the truck can be seen careening out of control and crashing into four parked cars.
Other videos from OnScene show Los Angeles Police Department officers, Los Angeles Fire Department officials and residents inspecting the scene.
“The driver was transported to a local hospital and he will be arrested for DUI but he’s still in the hospital,” Moran said. Two other people were also hospitalized with “minor visible injuries.”
At least three structures were destroyed and six others damaged as a wildfire continued to burn Tuesday in Riverside County, where about 4,000 people were under mandatory evacuation orders.
The Highland fire began around 12:37 p.m. Monday in the unincorporated neighborhood of Aguanga and quickly exploded in size as it met with strong Santa Ana winds and dried vegetation. At least 15 additional structures are threatened by the 2,200-acre blaze, which had 0% containment, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
More than 300 firefighters are battling the fire from the air and ground, according to Rob Roseen, a public information officer with Cal Fire in Riverside County.
Winds are coming out of the southeast and pushing the fire northwest, although there is some spread in all directions, he said. A wind advisory remains in effect until 8 p.m. across much of the Inland Empire, including Riverside County, with gusts of up to 50 mph possible, according to the National Weather Service.
“We’re looking at single-digit humidity this afternoon,” said Philip Gonsalves, a meteorologist with the weather service in San Diego, which includes Riverside County in its coverage area. “So from a weather perspective, conditions are favorable for fire growth.”
Evacuation orders remain in place for residents south of Sage Road and Golden Eagle Drive, north of Cottonwood Creek, west of Boulder Vista and east of Becker Lane, as well as residents south of Highway 371, west of Sorensen Road and north of the San Diego County line.
An additional evacuation order was issued at 6:20 a.m. Tuesday for residents south of Highway 79, north of the San Diego County line, east of Forest Route 8S07 and west of Crosely Truck Trail.
An evacuation warning is in effect for areas east of Vail Lake, west of Shirley Way, south of Pueblo Drive and Exa Ely Road, and north of David Street. An evacuation warning is also in effect for areas west of the Cahuilla Tribal Reservation Boundary and north of County Line Road.
A reception center has been opened at Great Oak High School in Temecula. Large and small animals can be taken to the San Jacinto Animal Shelter.
In total, approximately 1,139 homes are under evacuation orders, and 489 homes under an evacuation warning, Cal Fire officials said.
“We just ask that the public please remain vigilant,” public information officer Maggie Cline De La Rosa said in a video update. “If you received an evacuation order, please leave. If you received an evacuation warning, please continue to pay close attention to those.”
The fire is burning in an area that only recently was saturated by Tropical Storm Hilary, a rare storm that tore through swaths of Southern California in August. Gonsalves, of the weather service, said the storm’s rainfall contributed to “green-up” in the area, or the growth of new grasses, which may have subsequently dried out and could be feeding the fire.
It’s something experts warned of in the weeks after Hilary made landfall. Nick Schuler, Cal Fire’s deputy director of communications and emergency incident awareness, said in September that fire season was not over and that a prolonged wind event could still fan a blaze.
“When you have Santa Ana winds — winds that come from the east and blow to the west — it dries everything out,” Schuler said. “If you look at some of the largest fires in California’s history, especially Southern California, they started later in the year.”
The dry, windy conditions fueled several other small fires across the state, including the Lizzie fire in San Luis Obispo, which was 35% contained at 100 acres Tuesday morning. Crews in San Diego were also battling a small brush fire near Interstate 805 in Kearny Mesa, according to Fox 5 San Diego.
In the unincorporated area of Aromas, on the border of San Benito and Monterey counties, a small fire ignited around 2 a.m. Tuesday and prompted brief evacuation orders. The fire was contained to a small water district maintenance yard, officials said.
Roseen, of Cal Fire, said Tuesday that the Highland fire is burning in light grasses and medium brush. Remote mountaintop cameras in the area showed billowing plumes of white smoke.
“We’ll have an increased augmentation of ground resources today,” he said. “They’ll be bolstered by numerous resources that will be working in the area, as well as our fixed-wing and helicopter assets that will be working over the fire throughout the day to try to build some containment on this.”
Roseen could not immediately confirm what types of structures had been destroyed. The cause of the fire remains under investigation.
Low-income Los Angeles County residents who are behind on their utility payments have a chance at keeping the water on, with a federally funded program that has been extended through March.
The Low Income Household Water Assistance Program, administered by the California Department of Community Services and Development, was established by Congress in December 2020 as a one-time support to help low-income Californians pay past-due or current bills for water, sewer or both services.
Through the program, eligible applicants can receive up to $15,000 in assistance.
The program kicked off in 2021 with an estimated $5 million funding, said Frank Talamantes, home energy assistance program supervisor for the Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment.
For the last two years, Talamantes said only $2 million has been used to assist Californians.
The program was set to end this fall, but it will now remain available through March or until the funding runs out.
“When you want to dip into your savings [to pay your bill], why not apply for the program to help you with your water,” he said.
Here’s what residents need to know about eligibility requirements and how to apply.
Who is eligible for assistance?
The program is available to both low-income renters and homeowners — even though most renters are not responsible for their water and sewer bills.
Homeowners are eligible for the program if their total household gross income is at or below 60% of the state median income.
For example, if a resident lives in a three-person household with a monthly income of slightly more than $4,300, the applicant is eligible. The California Department of Community Services and Development’s online website has a household income eligibility guide that residents can reference.
An applicant is also eligible if a household member is a current recipient of CalFresh, CalWORKs, or the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Renters who are in charge of paying for their water and sewer bills can qualify for the program if they are past due on their rent. To get the benefit, the renter would need to complete an agreement with their landlord as part of the application.
How to apply
Interested applicants can check online to determine whether their water and sewer provider is enrolled in the Low Income Household Water Assistance Program. Providers such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Los Angeles County Public Waterworks Districts are enrolled.
According to the state Community Services and Development website, some utility providers cannot accept program assistance payments on current bills. Residents should check with the enrolled service provider on what the program can assist with.
Proof of income for all household members. (That includes proof of participation in CalFresh or CalWORKs.)
California I.D.
Talamantes said that if a homeowner or renter is in the country illegally, he or she can still be eligible for the program as long as one household member is at least 18 and a U.S. citizen; that person can apply for assistance.
Until a few days ago, Michael Schneider truly believed that his nonprofit, Streets For All, had solid enough political support to pursue what was certain to be an unpopular idea in L.A.: a study of whether it makes sense to rip up a Westside freeway and replace it with affordable housing and a humongous park.
He was a man about town, excitedly touting the letters and statements of “immense enthusiasm” from elected officials.
Like from the office of Mayor Karen Bass, who called the Marina Freeway — a three-mile, lightly trafficked stretch of Route 90 that was left unfinished after a plan to link it to Orange County was abandoned in the 1970s — a “freeway to nowhere.”
And from state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles), who described Schneider’s idea as “a forward-thinking project that would help alleviate L.A.’s need[s].”
Indeed, as someone who drives the Marina Freeway all the time, I’ve long thought there had be a higher and better use for the land than a mere shortcut from Marina del Rey to the 405 Freeway and over to South L.A. And so I was excited to hear that Streets For All was applying for a federal grant to study it for two years, tracking everything from environmental impacts to traffic to the opinions of nearby residents like me.
Now, though, my excitement as well as Schneider’s has given way to familiar feelings of frustration. True to form for NIMBY-indulging Los Angeles, the political support he believed was solid has suddenly turned porous.
That includes Bass: “I do not support the removal or demolition of the 90 Freeway,” she said in a statement last week. “I’ve heard loud and clear from communities who would be impacted and I do not support a study on this initiative.”
L.A. City Councilmember Traci Park agrees with her. After conducting a very unscientific poll of her Westside constituents, she wrote in her newsletter that: “The 11th District does not support the demolition of the 90 Freeway. Your voice is why Mayor Bass rescinded her initial support.”
L.A. County Supervisor Holly Mitchell told me that, despite rumors to the contrary, she never decided to back a study or tearing down the Marina Freeway, which abuts her district in the unincorporated neighborhood of Ladera Heights. “But it’s a moot point now,” she said.
Meanwhile, Smallwood-Cuevas said she still supports a feasibility study, but cautioned this week that it can’t be at “the expense of transparent community-driven input and analysis.”
Similarly, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City) said he’s never opposed to research. But there’s a difference between studying the impact of removing the freeway and, referring to several renderings of what Schneider envisions as Marina Central Park, “proposing an alternative design and resolution without a study having been completed.”
Streets for All, a local non-profit is proposing turning the 90 freeway, one of L.A. County’s shortest, and unfinished freeways, into a large public park with nearly 4,000 housing units.
(Courtesy of SWA / Streets For All)
“The 90 Freeway,” Bryan assured me, “is not going anywhere.”
It’s problematic that, at a time when roughly 75,000 people are sleeping in the streets countywide and vehicle emissions are exacerbating the effects of climate change, Los Angeles can’t summon the unified political will even to study — STUDY! — whether to replace a freeway with housing.
Equally problematic is the reason why.
I’m not talking about the blame that some have placed on Streets For All for being overzealous with its messaging and tactics. Or that, according to others, elected officials were too quick to surrender to the fears of their constituents, some of whom wrongly believe the removal of the Marina Freeway is imminent.
I’m talking about the fundamental disagreement in Los Angeles over the role and importance of community outreach. How much of it is enough? How soon should it be done? How much weight should it be given? And to what end?
These unanswered questions are ultimately why political support crumbled for studying the Marina Freeway, and it’s a troubling harbinger.
Most residents understandably want a say — or the say — in what happens to their neighborhood, whether it’s affordable housing on what’s now a freeway or a homeless shelter on what’s now a parking lot.
But given the size of the unhoused population and the scale of the housing construction needed to address it and lower rental prices for everyone else, I increasingly believe L.A.’s political leaders can’t keep putting so much stock in the opinions of residents. Not all development projects that are worthwhile or necessary will be popular.
“For so long, the loudest voices have usually derailed things,” Schneider said. “And all I’m saying is the loudest voices aren’t always the most correct voices.”
::
People don’t like change.
This is a truism that has led NIMBYs to file an untold number of frivolous lawsuits up and down the state of California.
It also has led Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature to repeatedly roll back local control over land use decisions — the latest being a law that lets nonprofit colleges and religious institutions bypass most local permitting and environmental review rules and rezone their land to build housing.
Even Bass, who has made homelessness her top issue, has pushed to cut through red tape and streamline the construction of housing and shelters, trying to extend the pipeline for unhoused Angelenos who have been moved into hotels through her Inside Safe program.
But the mayor said she’s still a big believer in “doing the hard work” of community outreach. She explained why when I shared my skepticism.
“This goes back to my days at Community Coalition,” she said. “We used to fight when the city tried to impose development on South L.A. without including South L.A., which is why you would think that I would say build everywhere, anywhere. But I don’t feel that way.”
Instead, she wants to get people involved in the process and build in ways that are in line with what each community wants.
“If I took a position that said, ‘steamroll everybody, just get housing done,’ we would tear the city apart,” Bass said, adding that residents would likely be against development for no reason other than it was forced upon them.
This is a big reason why she decided against supporting a study of the Marina Freeway. In talking to residents, she told me she heard only complaints — about the possibility of more traffic and longer commutes, and from Black people in South L.A., about losing a convenient corridor to Marina del Rey and the beach.
But most of all, Bass said she heard consternation that there had been no community outreach.
This came up in an online petition that went viral last month — even though it was packed with misleading assertions — written by Daphne Bradford, an education consultant from Ladera Heights who is running for supervisor against Mitchell in the March primary election.
“Ladera Heights is not just any neighborhood; it holds the distinction of being the 3rd most affluent African American community in the nation,” Bradford wrote, channeling her inner NIMBY. “Our community has worked hard to create a safe and prosperous environment for our families, and we believe that our voices should be heard when decisions are made that will affect us directly.”
Schneider sighed when I asked him about the petition.
“The whole point of the feasibility study is we would have almost two years of community outreach,” he said. “We’re a small nonprofit, we don’t have the resources to do the community outreach before getting the grant money.”
In the meantime, rumors about the Marina Freeway have overwhelmed the facts, and many residents have dug in their heels in opposition to whatever they think is happening. Mitchell suspects one reason for this is that Streets For All didn’t “do outreach the way we define outreach.”
The Marina Freeway, an unfinished three-mile stretch of road from Marina del Rey, is one of Los Angeles’ shortest thoroughfares. Now a local nonprofit is suggesting turning it into a large public park and thousands of affordable homes.
(Rendering courtesy of SWA / Streets For All)
“It can’t be 10 a.m. on a weekday, one meeting at the community center,” she told me. “You really have to get creative, partner with communities and not be afraid to reach out to people who will oppose you.”
But community outreach is a thorny issue, Mitchell acknowledges. Again, people don’t like change. And too many people want to “pull the drawbridge up” behind themselves and not let new housing into their neighborhoods.
“When people say outreach, they mean, ‘You didn’t ask me. And then when you asked me, you didn’t do what I said,’” Mitchell said. “That can’t be the expectation. But I do believe that every effort should be made to make sure that impacted communities are aware.”
Eventually, though, everyone will have to get used to the idea that our neighborhoods will look a little different to accommodate the housing that Los Angeles needs.
“These are really difficult decisions that we all kind of have to make,” Mitchell said.
::
Which brings me back to the Marina Freeway.
Despite the Streets For All being abandoned by much of the political establishment in Los Angeles, Schneider said its plan to conduct a feasibility study isn’t dead.
“We live in a democracy. You can’t stop somebody from studying something in the public space. That’s just not possible,” he said. “If we’re awarded the federal grant, we will do it. If we need to raise the money privately, we’ll do it. But we’re committed to exploring the idea because it’s worth exploring.”
Whether that study leads to removing the freeway and building thousands of units of affordable housing in Marina Central Park is another matter.
It’s a huge political decision, Schneider admits. One that will ultimately — undoubtedly and unfortunately — hinge on community outreach. After all, this is L.A.
A homeless housing project in West L.A., backed by Mayor Karen Bass and opposed by some neighborhood groups because of its proximity to residential homes, was approved by the Los Angeles City Council on Friday.
The council, with exception of one member who was absent, voted unanimously in favor of the 33-bed facility on a city-owned parking lot at Midvale Avenue and Pico Boulevard, across from the former Westside Pavilion. The council also decided that the project is exempt from a comprehensive environmental review.
Bass, Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky and other supporters argue the project will provide relief for the area’s unhoused population. It will also help the city comply with a legal settlement that requires it to add beds.
“The citywide issue of homelessness deserves a citywide response,” Bass said in a statement Friday. “We must continue to do all that we can to bring unhoused Angelenos inside and I thank Councilmember Yaroslavsky and the City Council for continuing the work to urgently confront the homelessness crisis.”
Yaroslavsky spoke ahead of the vote, promising residents and business owners who opposed the project that she would secure additional parking before breaking ground and would also develop a neighborhood safety plan with the Los Angeles Police Department and local homeless service providers.
“But let me be absolutely very clear, we need these beds,” said Yaroslavsky, who represents the area. “I know 33 beds doesn’t seem like a lot, because in all honesty, it’s not. It’s not nearly enough, considering the emergency we’re in right now.”
Right now, Yaroslavsky said, fewer than 100 of the city’s 16,000 homeless beds are in her district.
“What this means for my constituents, not only in Westwood but across the entire district, is that when we are trying to resolve an encampment and bring people inside, off the street and into housing, it’s nearly impossible,” she said.
The facility, which is projected to cost nearly $4.6 million, will include “sleeping cabins” with restrooms in each unit. There will also be on-site laundry facilities, storage bins and office space, according to a report from the city’s Bureau of Engineering. It’s expected to open in about a year, Yaroslavsky told The Times.
She said residents will have access to mental health and substance use disorder specialists, employment assistance and help finding permanent housing. There will be 24-hour security on-site. Most of the beds will be reserved for people who have ties to the area.
The Westside Neighborhood Council voted last week to oppose the project because it would be near homes and businesses along Pico Boulevard. The group also expressed “dismay that other sites were not being evaluated as alternatives.”
Controversy over the proposed facility ratcheted up earlier this week when Bass abruptly removed the president of the Transportation Commission days after he led his colleagues in delaying a vote on an environmental review waiver.
At a commission meeting, President Eric Eisenberg had expressed concern about the waiver and asked for a delay so the panel could hear more about the project from city representatives.
On Monday, Eisenberg said, he was informed by the mayor’s office that he was no longer a commissioner. Bass’ office has declined to explain why she removed Eisenberg.
At a special meeting on Wednesday, the Transportation Commission — now operating without Eisenberg — approved the waiver.
Bass has made reducing homelessness her top issue. Her Inside Safe initiative seeks to quickly move unhoused Angelenos into motels and hotels, and she has ordered city departments to hasten the construction of affordable housing and shelters.
Eisenberg, in a statement he provided to The Times, said he wasn’t convinced the project should be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
A “project of thirty small homes, with sewage, plumbing lines, and trash disposal, [could] cause a situation, where the benefits of the project do not outweigh the hazards to the community,” he wrote.
Barbara Broide, a neighborhood council member, urged the City Council at a committee hearing on the project earlier this month to look at different sites, including one on Cotner Avenue.
“We’re here to tell you this is the wrong location,” Broide said. “It’s a good project for another place.”
Broide was one of several residents who hoped to address the City Council before Friday’s vote. But the council did not allow comments until afterward.
“I just wanted the council to know that it has shredded the faith that dozens of my neighbors have in their government,” said Meg Sullivan, who lives in the council district. “They came here today to let you know their very reasonable concerns, which I share, about putting housing on a much-needed public lot on Midvale, and yet they were not able to speak.”
Margaret Gillespie, a member of the Westside Neighborhood Assn., spoke in support of the project.
“I want to thank Councilmember Yaroslavsky for her leadership on this very difficult issue. It’s difficult because of all the misinformation that circulates and the false narratives about the homeless,” she said. “I support the project because 25 of the 30 units are reserved for people who live here.”
/dq51b8gw.JPG)
