When rain falls on California shopping centers and warehouses, the water runs off parking lots carrying metal dust and chemicals from vehicle tires and brake pads, oil and grease from engines, and bacteria from trash.

The gunk washes into storm drains and pollutes creeks, rivers and beaches.

Now environmental advocates are pushing state regulators to crack down by requiring stormwater permits — essentially best practices — for businesses that haven’t been held accountable for their polluted runoff.

“Commercial properties right now are not regulated under any stormwater permit,” said Sean Bothwell, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance. “Think Costco, think Amazon warehouses. Large places with large parking lots are really what we’re going after.”

Groups that represent the businesses say they are already paying property taxes that in L.A. County include a special tax for cleaning up stormwater, and that imposing new regulations in this way doesn’t make sense.

But California Coastkeeper Alliance and other nonprofit groups submitted petitions to regional water officials across the state this week demanding they begin regulating commercial properties such as big-box stores, auto dealers and industrial parks.

The groups want the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a statewide rule, or permit, for “commercial, industrial and institutional” properties, which also include stadiums, malls and private hospitals.

If the state doesn’t act, Bothwell said, “our waterways will never be safe to fish or swim in, particularly Southern California beaches.”

That’s because a large portion of the pollution fouling waterways comes from these businesses. Bothwell said his group estimates, using methods developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, that unregulated businesses are responsible for 30% to 60% of metals like copper and zinc found in waterways, depending on the area. At high concentrations, these are toxic to fish and other animals.

Many Southern California creeks and concrete-lined channels are deemed “impaired” by regulators because pollution levels violate water quality standards.

The way California currently enforces the federal Clean Water Act, the businesses have no obligation to reduce the filthy water that flows into drains, and the costs of cleanup efforts fall to cities and counties, Bothwell said.

Because large parking lots often contribute to polluted stromwater runoff, environmental groups are urging state regulators to start requiring permits.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Instead, the cities or counties where they are located are regulated. Researchers estimate California cities and counties spend more than $700 million each year on capturing and cleaning up stormwater.

California would be the first in the country to adopt such a statewide standard or permit. In addition to cities, the state already requires stormwater permits for construction sites, roads and certain industrial plants.

Business groups have opposed the proposal. John Myers, a spokesperson for the California Chamber of Commerce, noted that the effort to mandate stormwater permits has been discussed for several years in L.A. County after environmental groups won a favorable court ruling. “Simply choosing to use that effort as a template for other diverse regions, without a careful analysis of benefits and costs, could have major impacts on California’s economy,” he said.

The Los Angeles County Business Federation, or BizFed, raised similar concerns.

“Everyone wants cleaner waterways. However, this proposal simply isn’t ready for prime time,” said Mike Lewis, BizFed’s water co-chair.

As written, the proposal “hits existing property owners with retroactive costs while simultaneously ignoring the stormwater taxes they’ve been paying in good faith for years,” Lewis said in an email. “This seems less like environmental policy and more like a penalty. There are better, fairer ways to clean up stormwater.”

If there were a statewide measure for commercial businesses, many would probably have to build retention ponds or swales to filter out contaminants before water percolates underground. Or they could pay an annual fee, helping to fund local stormwater projects that cities need.

The money collected from companies, Bothwell said, would be used for building wetlands, water-absorbing parks and other green spaces next to parking lots — which help clean runoff instead of letting it run into storm drains.

At the same time, Southern California cities have been investing in projects to capture stormwater and recharge groundwater as they seek to rely less on water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River.

Unless the state acts, contaminated water will continue running off businesses’ parking lots into drains, adding to the “toxic soup” in Southern California waterways, said Bruce Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper.

California Coastkeeper Alliance and a coalition of local Waterkeeper groups submitted the petitions to regional boards in the Inland Empire, San Diego, the Bay Area, the Central Coast, the north coast and the Sacramento Valley.

They invoked a provision of the Clean Water Act that authorizes states to require additional permits on a case-by-case basis.

L.A. Waterkeeper and other environmental groups successfully used the same provision to convince the EPA in 2024 to require permits for businesses near the polluted Dominguez Channel and Los Cerritos Channel in L.A. County. State regulators are preparing to issue those permits.

The regional water boards received the new petitions and will consider them, said Ailene Voisin, a spokesperson.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have required stormwater permits for many businesses statewide. In 2025, a similar bill faced opposition and died in the Legislature.

California defense tech startup Mach Industries said Tuesday it raised $300 million, nearly quadrupling the company’s valuation to $1.8 billion within a year.

The Huntington Beach startup’s soaring valuation underscores how defense tech funding is booming as armed conflicts such as the Iran war and the Russian-Ukrainian war continue. Infinite Capital and Ribbit Capital led Mach Industries’ Series C funding round.

“We’re delivering advanced unmanned systems at the pace the threat environment demands, and we’re grateful to our investors for believing in our ability to strengthen American and allied superiority on the battlefield,” Mach Industries Chief Executive Ethan Thornton said in a statement.

Thornton, 22, launched the Huntington Beach defense tech startup in 2023 after dropping out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he studied aerospace engineering.

The startup builds drones and other defense systems, developing products such as Viper, its vertical-takeoff strike vehicle; Glide, its high-altitude glider capable of launching weapons; and Stratos, its airborne satellite platform for surveillance.

Well-known venture capital firms such as Sequoia Capital, Khosla Ventures and Bedrock Capital have backed the defense tech startup.

The funding will help Mach Industries expand its manufacturing, advance its technology and deepen its partnerships with customers that include the U.S. Army and Air Force, according to a news release about the funding round. The startup has been growing its business, acquiring rocket-maker Exquadrum for $50 million in April.

As the Trump administration pushes to modernize and expand the U.S. military by partnering with major technology companies, some tech workers at companies such as Google, Amazon, Anthropic and OpenAI are raising concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.

Despite these worries, some of the world’s largest tech companies are increasing their work with the U.S. military. In April, eight technology companies, including Google, Nvidia and SpaceX, struck a deal with the Pentagon to strengthen the U.S. military and establish an “AI-first fighting force.”

The effort has also benefited defense tech startups and AI companies that work with the military. Southern California has been a hub for aerospace and defense tech companies, including Costa Mesa-based Anduril Industries, which reached a $61-billion valuation this year.

President Trump on Thursday said he will invoke Cold War-era emergency powers to direct a nearly $700-million investment into the waning coal industry, including construction of a new West Coast coal export terminal in Oakland.

Speaking from the White House, Trump said he will use the Defense Production Act, a 1950 law that grants the president emergency authority over domestic industries deemed critical to national security, to construct a new export terminal on the West Coast for the first time to move supplies overseas. He also announced the upgrading of 13 existing coal plants across the country, the construction of two new coal plants in Alaska and West Virginia, and restarting a shuttered coal plant in Maryland.

“Today we’re taking historic action to bring down the price of energy and the cost of living for all Americans with the power of clean, beautiful coal,” Trump said. He was joined by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Environmental Protection Agency administration Lee Zeldin and other top officials.

Trump and his energy advisors have said coal power is a matter of national security because of rising energy costs, primarily from the growth of artificial intelligence data centers. He declared a national energy emergency on his first day back in office, which was aimed at boosting domestic fossil fuel production.

High energy costs have also become an issue for voters, with residential electricity bills increasing nearly 11% since Trump resumed office in January 2025, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The effort to establish a West Coast coal export terminal revives a fight that has played out repeatedly in recent years.

Beginning around 2010, the coal industry began pushing for new export sites in California, Oregon and Washington that would deliver coal from landlocked western states to energy-hungry markets in Asia. Those plans met fierce opposition from environmental groups and local communities concerned about climate impacts, coal dust, rail traffic and other potential downsides.

The plans were eventually abandoned, leaving the West Coast without a major U.S. coal export terminal — until now.

“Starting this summer, the West Gateway project will break ground and by summer 2028, over 12 million tons of clean beautiful coal per year will be shipped to countries all around the world,” Trump said.

While the administration leaned on coal as an energy cost solution, opponents said the move will actually increase soaring electricity prices — noting that renewables are generally cheaper than coal when it comes to new power generation in the U.S. A recent report from the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation found that 99% of all U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to run than replacement by new local solar, wind or energy storage.

“President Trump’s continued attempt to bail out the coal industry endangers public health and leaves Americans footing the bill for more expensive power,” said Shannon Baker-Branstetter, senior director for climate and energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Baker-Branstetter noted that coal use has been declining for years due to market forces. At the same time, she said pouring taxpayer dollars into a new export facility “means there is no benefit at all to U.S. consumers, while the export terminals would burden communities next to the port with deadly soot pollution.”

The burning of coal is one of the largest drivers of air pollution, releasing fine particles known to be harmful to respiratory and cardiovascular health. At the same time, coal is a leading driver of human-caused climate change, responsible for about 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion.

The move also follows the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to slow U.S. investment in renewable energy, particularly offshore wind power, electric vehicle initiatives and federal funding for solar projects.

“We wouldn’t have the buildings, the factories, the industry, the electricity grid we have today without the critical contribution of coal, the largest source of global electricity for 125 years in a row, and will be for decades to come,” said Wright, the U.S. Energy Secretary.

But investing in coal in 2026 is akin to “a taxpayer bailout to build new phone booths,” said Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The Trump administration’s claim that this has to do with national security is just another false pretext,” Kennedy said. “Instead of bailing out dirty energy, why don’t they end their attacks on cheap, plentiful wind and solar power? That’s the surest way to cut our bills and end our dependence on volatile global energy markets.”

Kennedy added that the latest action from the White House will result in higher bills and dirtier air for Americans.

“The best thing for the air, the climate and our utility bills is to let these plants retire peacefully,” she said.