California
Elias: California water agency supply estimates should be more realistic
The thousands of drivers traversing Interstate 5 on any given day this winter can see for themselves: Nothing even remotely like a water shortage currently plagues the State Water Project.
This is completely obvious from the major viewpoint off the east side of the interstate between Gustine and Patterson, from which it’s clear that all major canals of the project just south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta are full to capacity or nearly so.
It’s much the same a few dozen miles to the southwest, where the water project’s largest manmade lake, the San Luis Reservoir, is chock-full. Sand-colored margins that grew steadily larger during the decade of drought from 2010 to 2020 have long since been inundated, with the artificial lake shining bright blue on crisp, sunny winter days.
Water officials also promise the San Luis Reservoir will soon be expanded. So why does California’s Water Resources Department persist in providing preliminary farm water allocations that can only be described as small?
It may be due to insecurity, a sense that the Pacific Ocean is due for a long-running “La Nina” condition that could produce a new drought and lower State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project water volumes to the dangerously dry levels of seven and eight years ago.
It may also simply be bureaucrats reminding farmers that they control the lifeblood of America’s most productive agricultural region, also one of the five largest industries in California.
The reality, though — especially after heavy “atmospheric river” rains in mid-November and December drenched Northern California — is that farms will receive far more water than the 5% of requested amounts promised them in late December, when state officials behaved as if the November downpours would be the water year’s last precipitation.
Yes, it is the duty of water officials to husband California’s water supplies to make sure neither cities nor farms ever run completely dry. But 5% made no real sense. It’s as if the bureaucrats who work for Gov. Gavin Newsom wanted to put the lie to his post-election pledges to pay more heed to the Central Valley and its interests, whose sense of being disrespected was one reason that region was the only major part of California carried by President Trump in last fall’s election.
This adds up to a need to change some practices, including a few outlined by Karla Nemeth, the Water Resources Department’s director. “We need to prepare for any scenario, and this early in the season we need to take a conservative approach to managing our water supply,” she said.
That makes planning crops difficult, though, if not impossible, for farmers unless they depend greatly on ground water, a resource becoming increasingly depleted while ground levels above aquifers subside, which they have, as anyone can deduce from seeing onetime irrigation pipes that now rise several feet above current ground levels.
Compromising a bit would be better in years following a few seasons of heavy rain, today’s situation. Another way to put this might be to ask why state bureaucrats push a number and then essentially wink at farmers to tell them what they’re hearing is nowhere near what will eventually govern.
That’s what happened last year too, when the initial estimate of what farmers would get was 10% of requests and the ultimate amount was 40% — still using conservative allocations to make sure, unnecessarily, that reservoirs and canals remained full all year round rather than just partially full.
Even now, after a 2024 that was much drier than 2023 and an early winter with virtually no rain in Southern California, drinking water reservoirs remain nearly full. Diamond Valley Lake, near Hemet, the largest such potable water storage facility in Southern California, was at 97% of capacity shortly after Christmas.
All this makes the time high for California water bureaucrats to cut out their act and provide farmers and other citizens with realistic supply estimates, rather than constantly reserving the right to leave water districts and their people and industries high and dry, even when supplies are copious.
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com, and read more of his columns online at californiafocus.net.
Originally Published:
BERKELEY, Calif. — – John Camden scored 20 points and Dai Dai Ames and Justin Pippen each added 19 as California built a 20-point lead and held off No. 14 North Carolina 84-78 on Saturday.
The Tar Heels (14-4, 2/3 Atlantic Coast Conference) absorbed their second straight loss in the Bay Area; they fell 95-90 at Stanford on Wednesday.
Cal (14-5, 2-4) owned that 20-point lead early in the second half. A basket by Ames gave the Bears a 74-55 edge with 8:26 left before the Tar Heels rallied.
Carolina cut its deficit to 81-78 on a 3-pointer by Henri Veesaar with 19 seconds remaining but Pippen hit two foul shots with 10 seconds to go to just about clinch the decision.
Pippen had a game-high five assists. His father Scottie, a Basketball Hall of Famer, was part of the announced crowd of 8,077 at Haas Pavilion.
Cal had a decided advantage in 3-point shooting: The Bears went 14 for 26 from beyond the arc. The Heels were 9 for 27.
Freshman Caleb Wilson led Carolina with 17 points. Veesaar had 14 points and 10 rebounds.
The Bears’ Lee Dort grabbed a game-high 12 boards.
California scored the game’s first seven points, put together an 11-0 run to take a 26-13 lead and did not trail at any point Saturday.
The Bears took their biggest lead of the first half when Ames hit a jumper with 14 seconds remaining to put Cal up 54-35. Derek Dixon’s layup just before the buzzer cut the Heels’ deficit to 54-37 at the break.
Camden led all scorers in the half with 16 points as Cal went 10 for 16 from beyond the arc in the opening 20 minutes.
Up next
North Carolina hosts Notre Dame on Wednesday.
Cal plays at Stanford next Saturday.
——
Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here and here (AP News mobile app). AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketballbr/]
Copyright © 2026 ESPN Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.
Billionaire developer Rick Caruso will not run for Los Angeles mayor or California governor, after months of speculation that he would seek one of the two posts.
Caruso, who had been teasing a possible run for months, made his decision Friday, saying it came after “many heartfelt conversations” with his family.
“Though my name will not be on a ballot, my work continues,” Caruso said on X. “Public service does not require a title. It is, and always will be, my calling.”
Caruso’s plans were the talk of political circles for many months. Recently, he seemed to confirm that he would seek one of the two positions.
When asked by a reporter on Jan. 7 if it was possible he would not run for any position, Caruso responded: “That option is pretty much off the table now.”
Caruso said he will focus on his nonprofit, Steadfast LA, which brings industry leaders together to help with the Palisades fire recovery.
The 66-year-old developer behind popular L.A. malls like the Grove and the Americana at Brand spent $100 million of his own fortune against Karen Bass in 2022, outspending her 11 to 1 in his failed bid. But Bass beat him by nearly 10 percentage points.
Caruso served as president of the L.A. Police Commission in the 2000s and helped the city hire William Bratton as police chief. He was appointed to the Department of Water and Power board in 1984, at age 26 — the youngest commissioner in city history at the time.
Caruso has steadily critiqued the mayor online and in public appearances since 2022, seemingly honing and refining his argument for voters to reject the incumbent, whom he has described as incompetent.
“Her record is so bad,” Caruso said at a town hall he hosted at the Americana on Nov. 3.
Caruso’s decision not to run for mayor solidifies the 2026 field against Bass. Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Austin Beutner is running a moderate campaign, with arguments about Bass’ response to the Palisades fire and quality of life concerns that are similar to Caruso’s. The developer’s entry could have thrown a wrench into Beutner’s campaign.
Bass also faces a challenge from her left with Rae Huang, a community organizer and reverend, announcing a run for mayor in November.
Most recently, the entry of former reality star and Palisades fire victim Spencer Pratt has added new intrigue to the race.
Bass’ campaign declined to comment on Caruso’s decision.
As for governor, some voters in deep blue pockets of the state may have rejected Caruso, a former Republican who registered as a Democrat in 2022 and has faced questions over his past party registration.
Still, the developer, who has made public safety and quality of life issues his main talking points, might have attracted California voters unhappy with the current crop of gubernatorial candidates.
No single candidate has dominated the field, while some potential contenders, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, have announced they’re not running.
As he weighed a bid for governor in the last year, Caruso traveled multiple times to Sacramento and around the state to meet with labor leaders, community groups and politicians.
“My guess is he did polling and he did not see a path forward,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College.
“Had he jumped into either race and lost, it would have made the prospects of elected office even further away,” she said.
By Marisa Kendall and Ben Christopher, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened many times to withhold state homelessness funds from cities and counties that aren’t doing enough to get people off the streets.
This year, those threats seem more real than ever.
Newsom’s administration and the Legislature are adding new strings to that money, which they hope will help address one of the state’s most obvious policy failures: Despite California’s large recent investments in homelessness, encampments are still rampant on city streets. But cities and counties already are chafing under the tightening requirements, which they worry will make it harder to access crucial state funds without directly improving conditions on the street.
To access state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention money, cities and counties are being pressured to enact a policy regulating homeless encampments that passes state muster – a potential challenge in a state where local jurisdictions’ rules on encampments vary greatly, and many localities have no policy at all. The state also wants localities to get a “prohousing designation” – a special status awarded to places that go above and beyond to build housing. It’s a distinction that only 60 of California’s 541 cities and counties (home to just 15% of the state population) have achieved so far.
Newsom, the Legislature, local officials and other stakeholders likely will spend the next several months fighting about those terms, and hashing out the conditions for the $500 million in homelessness funding proposed in this year’s budget.
Until those details are resolved, exactly what standard cities and counties will be held to – and what will happen to those that don’t comply – is unclear. But one thing is clear: The state is done freely handing out cash.
Some counties are already feeling the heat. They report increased scrutiny as they apply for the homelessness funds already approved in the 2024-25 budget (which, thanks to lengthy bureaucratic delays, have just been made available.)
“They’re holding the counties’ feet to the fire,” said Megan Van Sant, senior program manager with the Mendocino County Department of Social Services.
Newsom’s administration and legislators in favor of the new accountability measures say cities and counties for too long have been scooping up state funds without proving that they’re using them wisely. The new message to locals is clear, said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva, a Democrat from La Palma in Orange County: “The state has been moving forward, not only with the investment in dollars, but also with legislation. Now it is your time to show that if you want these dollars…you have to show us what you’re doing.”
But the new requirements may make it more burdensome to access crucial homelessness funds.
“I worry that, one, we may leave more cities out,” said Carolyn Coleman, executive director and CEO of the League of California Cities, “and, two, that we may cause delays in the ability to get more people housed sooner, which I think is the goal.”
A tougher application process
Applying for state homelessness funds “absolutely” feels different now than it did last year, and the state is asking tougher questions, said Robert Ratner, director of Santa Cruz County’s Housing for Health program.
Fortunately, the county just approved an encampment policy in September, and has started working on getting a pro-housing designation, he said. But the state still returned the county’s application with plenty of notes.
“It has felt, at times, like the goal post keeps moving a little bit,” Ratner said.
The county’s application still hasn’t been approved, but it seems to be getting close, Ratner said.
In Mendocino County, the state appears to be holding funds hostage until the county can explain its plans to pass an encampment ordinance, said Van Sant. The county board of supervisors is working on such an ordinance, though it hasn’t come up for a vote yet.
But the state’s requirement puts Van Sant and her team in an awkward position. As housing administrators, they have no say in any rules the county passes that regulate or prohibit encampments on local streets.
“I wanted to stay out of it,” Van Sant said. “I still want to stay out of it. We’re housing providers. We try to figure out how to provide people housing. We don’t want to weigh in on enforcement. At all.”
This year, the requirements may get even stricter. Under the current rules, the state seems to be satisfied as long as a city or county can show how it plans to get a prohousing designation or pass an encampment policy. In the next round of funding, local leaders worry the state will withhold funds unless cities and counties have actually achieved those benchmarks.
It’s all about accountability
At issue is the state Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program, which provides the main source of state money cities and counties use to fight homelessness.
Though Newsom introduced the first round of funding, $650 million, as a “one-time” infusion of cash for local governments in 2019, it became a recurring feature of his administration’s strategy to reduce homelessness over the next five years.
For four years in a row, the state awarded $1 billion a year to be divvied up between counties, big cities and federally-recognized regional homelessness funding groups known as Continuums of Care. Each round of funding was described as “one-time.” Even so, at least a quarter of the money has gone to day-to-day operating programs, according to data collected by the state.
New Jersey man fractures girl’s skull by allegedly throwing rock through school bus window, arrest made
Video: Armed Robbers Steal At Least $110,000 Worth of Pokémon Cards
Detroit Pistons easily dispatch shorthanded Indiana Pacers, 121-78
49ers vs. Seahawks live updates: Divisional game score, highlights
Crews demolish parts of Interstate 30 in downtown Dallas for planned construction
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Spanberger takes swipe at Trump admin, says Virginians worried about ‘recklessness coming out of Washington’
Thousands take part in ‘Hands off Greenland’ protests in Denmark
They quit their day jobs to bet on current events. A look inside the prediction market mania
IRS confirms Trump-ordered $1,776 ‘Warrior Dividend’ for 1.45M troops is tax-free
Myanmar military-backed party leads after second round of election voting
-
Montana1 week agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Delaware1 week agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Virginia1 week agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Montana1 week ago‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
-
Minnesota1 week agoICE arrests in Minnesota surge include numerous convicted child rapists, killers
-
Oklahoma6 days agoMissing 12-year-old Oklahoma boy found safe
-
Lifestyle3 days agoJulio Iglesias accused of sexual assault as Spanish prosecutors study the allegations
Last year, things changed. The budget lacked any extra cash for grant funds, and the state’s main homelessness program received no new money. Instead, the Legislature committed to spend $500 million — a 50% reduction from the last round of funding — in the coming fiscal year contingent on “clear accountability requirements.”
Those requirements for localities, spelled out in a follow-up budget bill signed into law last fall, include:
- Having a state-approved housing plan, known as a housing element
- Having a “Prohousing Designation” from state housing regulators
- Having local encampment policy “consistent with administration guidance”
- Ponying up some local funding to match the state contribution
- Demonstrating “progress” and “results” on housing and homelessness metrics
These new demands didn’t come out of left field. For several years now, “accountability” has been one of Newsom’s favorite words when discussing homelessness funding. “People have just had it,” he said in 2023. “We want to see these encampments cleaned up.” He has repeatedly threatened to withhold funds, and has gradually ramped up the strings attached to homelessness dollars.
But the current list represents an especially stringent set of requirements for locals hoping for a cut of what has been one of the state’s signature funding sources to combat homelessness.
Quirk-Silva noted that the current list of requirements is not final. She expects the administration to release additional legislative language in February. Legislators will fight over the details through the June budget deadline.
She expected particularly fierce pushback over any kind of “prohousing designation” requirement.
Revoking funds from areas of the state that lack such a designation would be “penalizing service providers for something that is outside of their control,” said Monica Davalos, a policy analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank.
San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan wishes the state would focus on more concrete measures of success, such as the number of people housed using state dollars, instead of things like a “prohousing” stamp.
“We’re making this way too complicated,” he said.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.