Politics
New California water measures aim to increase fines for violators, protect wetlands
Under California law, anyone caught diverting water in violation of a state order has long been subject to only minimal fines. State legislators have now decided to crack down on violators under a newly approved bill that sharply increases penalties.
Assembly Bill 460 was passed by the Legislature last week and is among the water-related measures awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. Other bills that were approved aim to protect the state’s wetlands and add new safeguards for the water supplies of rural communities.
Supporters say increasing fines for violations will help the State Water Resources Control Board more effectively enforce its orders to curtail water use when necessary.
“It helps the water board enforce the laws that they have on the books,” said Analise Rivero, associate director of policy for the group California Trout, which co-sponsored the bill.
The bill, which was introduced by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), is intended to prevent the sort of violations that occurred in 2022 in the Shasta River watershed, when farmers and ranchers who belong to the Shasta River Water Assn. defied a curtailment order for eight days and diverted more than half the river’s flow, flouting requirements aimed at protecting salmon.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
The state water board fined the association the maximum amount for the violation: $4,000, which worked out to about $50 for each of its members. Those small fines didn’t deter farmers and ranchers from reducing the river’s flow to a point that threatened salmon and affected the supplies of downstream water users.
The case in Siskiyou County led to widespread calls for larger fines and stronger enforcement powers.
The legislation increases fines for violations of state water curtailment to as much as $10,000 per day, plus $2,500 for each acre-foot of water diverted. (An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, or enough to cover one acre a foot deep.)
“This bill closes that loophole and makes the existing law stronger, and it’s an important step in disincentivizing water theft,” Rivero said.
Rivero said being able to impose larger fines is important as California grapples with the effects of climate change on water supplies.
Leaders of a coalition of environmental groups urged Newsom to sign the bill. In a letter, they said enforcing harsher penalties for violators is crucial for the state water board to “fulfill its mission of protecting fish, water, and people.”
Bauer-Kahan said that for too long, breaking the law and paying the fines have been seen as the cost of doing business by some illegal water diverters.
“Although we did not go far enough in ensuring that our water rights system functions in times of scarcity, we did take an important step,” Bauer-Kahan said.
The legislation raises penalties to “better hold those who steal water accountable,” she said. “Water is a precious resource, and we must do everything possible to ensure its protection.”
Proponents of the bill made some sacrifices to secure sufficient support in the Legislature, dropping a provision that would have given the state water board authority to act faster in emergencies to prevent “irreparable injury” to streams, fish or other water users.
The result was a relatively modest reform, but one that serves an important purpose, said Cody Phillips, staff attorney for the group California Coastkeeper Alliance.
“Being able to get the California Legislature to agree to increase fines in water is a major deal for the practical consequences of preventing water theft, but also to show that we can change these important details about our water rights system, and the sky doesn’t fall,” Phillips said.
Other proposals have recently encountered strong opposition from agricultural groups and water agencies.
Phillips and other environmental advocates supported another bill, AB 1337, which sought to clarify the state water board’s authority to issue curtailment orders for all diverters, including senior rights holders that use a large portion of the state’s water. But that bill didn’t secure enough support to pass this year in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
“Water is often referred to as the third rail in California politics, and we’ve seen that any changes, even modest changes, like 460 and frankly 1337, are met with ferocious pushback,” Phillips said. “But we can’t avoid these issues — climate change, overallocation, they’ve all led to a system where the way that we deal with water just doesn’t work.”
Some legal experts said the bill is a step in the right direction.
“We know that water is the single most important resource in the state, and yet we do not have a clear understanding of who uses it, where, and when, and we do not have a robust system for correcting unlawful use,” said Jennifer Harder, a professor at University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law.
Harder said the state needs to continue improving collection of water use data and should adopt measures to improve oversight of water rights. She said she is optimistic that “local water suppliers will come to understand that state-level standards can support and enhance local management.”
One of the other water-related measures passed by the Legislature included a bill intended to protect California’s wetlands after the rollback of federal protections under a Supreme Court decision last year. The court’s ruling in Sackett vs. EPA rewrote the federal definition of wetlands and removed federal protections for many streams that do not flow year-round, leaving ephemeral streams vulnerable to development and pollution.
If signed by Newsom, the bill, AB 2875, will codify an executive order that then-Gov. Pete Wilson issued in 1993 establishing a state policy of “no net loss” of wetlands and calling for a long-term increase in the acreage of wetlands. Despite that policy, the state has continued to lose more wetland acres to development during the last three decades.
“We have wetlands that only flow certain times of year, and they are seasonal, ephemeral streams that were stripped of protections, and yet they are really, really important biologically and for habitat,” said Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who introduced the legislation.
Wetlands and a riparian forest are sustained by groundwater at the National Audubon Society’s Kern River Preserve.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Friedman and other supporters of the measure have stressed that because more than 90% of California’s original wetlands have already been drained and destroyed, strong protections for those that remain are vital. They say since the Supreme Court has scaled back the Clean Water Act’s federal protections for wetlands, the state will need to play a bigger role.
“We care about our state’s natural resources here in California, and it’s a shame that we right now have a Supreme Court that doesn’t seem to be very concerned about the kind of destruction that we’re seeing to our environment,” Friedman said. “It falls on states to really play whack-a-mole and catch up, because we have relied for a long time on existing, long-standing federal regulations.”
Scientists have documented major declines in North American bird populations since the 1970s, and they cite causes including the loss of habitats and warmer, drier conditions driven by climate change, among other factors.
The bill was sponsored by leaders of Audubon California, who called the measure an important step toward protecting wetland habitats that birds need to survive.
The bill doesn’t create a new regulatory framework but does make “a strong statement that California will protect and add wetlands,” said Mike Lynes, Audubon California’s director of public policy. “We’ve already lost so much of our natural wetland habitat. We’ve seen a decline in biodiversity, and there’s a ton of benefits by creating wetlands, not only for ecosystems, but also for flood control and for recreational opportunities, whether it’s birding, hunting, just hiking out in wetland areas.”
Another bill that was approved, AB 828, is aimed at improving safeguards for managed wetlands that are sustained by groundwater pumping, as well as rural communities that depend on wells. The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), would allow these managed wetlands and small communities to temporarily continue to pump amounts of water in line with historical averages without facing mandatory reductions or fees imposed by local agencies under the state’s groundwater law.
Supporters said they proposed the change after several local agencies proposed groundwater allocations that would excessively limit supplies for communities or wildlife areas while also limiting pumping by agricultural landowners who are the largest water users.
“It sets a pause on pumping restrictions for small community water systems and managed wetlands, and on some fees, until those issues and their needs are considered,” Lynes said.
Some communities in the Central Valley have faced unworkable requirements to cut water use dramatically and start paying high fees for exceeding those limits, said Jennifer Clary, state director for the group Clean Water Action.
“We wanted a long-term exemption, but there was a lot of concern in the Legislature about that,” Clary said.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has emerged as one of the party’s fastest-rising political figures, drawing national attention for his populist message and outsider image.
But as his profile has grown, so has scrutiny of his past conduct, with controversies ranging from sexually explicit messages and offensive social media posts to a Nazi-linked tattoo and campaign staff upheaval.
PLATNER CONTROVERSIES FUEL SPECULATION ABOUT LITTLE-KNOWN MAINE BALLOT REPLACEMENT PROVISION
In continued clean-up of those scandals, Platner came to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday to huddle with party figures at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee headquarters just one week before his primary election.
The Marine veteran and oyster farmer has defended himself against the criticism and retained the support of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Still, some have questioned whether the allegations could complicate Democrats’ efforts to unseat Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races.
Here’s a look at the major controversies that have engulfed Platner’s campaign.
Explicit text messages and sexting allegations
Senate candidate Graham Platner is under fire, but it was his wife Amy Gertner coming out with a controversial five-minute social media post by the campaign to denounce the ‘attacks’ while she did not deny the allegations of infidelity in a new marriage. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The most recent controversy surrounding Platner stems from reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with multiple women during his marriage, an issue that campaign aides were reportedly aware of as his Senate bid was taking shape.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, informed a campaign aide about the text exchanges shortly after he launched his Senate bid as staffers were assessing potential political liabilities.
According to the report, Gertner discovered the messages months after the couple married in 2024 and disclosed their existence before her husband held a campaign rally alongside progressive Sen. Sanders. The campaign told Politico that the aide viewed the matter as a private issue between the couple and did not raise concerns about it publicly.
SENATE CANDIDATE GRAHAM PLATNER SENT EXPLICIT TEXTS TO MULTIPLE WOMEN WHILE MARRIED, WIFE SAYS: REPORT
Platner’s campaign later confirmed the existence of the text exchanges to Politico.
He also told Fox News Digital in a statement: “Amy and I went through something hard — because of me. We did the work, and I’m grateful for her every hour of every day.”
“I’ve learned throughout this campaign is that people don’t care about gossip or headlines, they care that you’re fighting for their hospitals, their paycheck, their kids… Our opponents want politics to be empty of content and empty of actual change — and beating that is exactly what our movement is about,” he added.
In a statement to the Journal, Gertner criticized the disclosure of the information, saying she had shared “deeply personal details” about her marriage with someone she considered a friend, only to see those details become public.
She revealed that the two attended couple’s counseling, worked through the issues in their marriage and have since emerged as a stronger couple.
“I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life,” Gertner said. “That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.”
Nazi-linked tattoo
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, points to a covered tattoo that was previously recognized as a Nazi symbol during an interview in Portland, Maine, on Oct. 22, 2025. (WGME via AP)
Platner’s campaign also faced intense scrutiny after it was revealed he once had a skull-and-crossbones tattoo on his chest closely resembling the “Totenkopf” symbol used by Hitler’s SS paramilitary forces.
The Maine Democrat said he got the tattoo during a “night of drinking” while on leave in Croatia in 2007 as a Marine and claimed he was entirely unaware of its meaning at the time.
In an Instagram video posted in May, Platner elaborated on the tattoo’s origins. He explained that he merely selected the design from a flash tattoo wall while “carousing” with fellow Marines in Split, Croatia.
“We thought it looked cool,” he downplayed.
Platner said he was later “appalled” to learn the image resembled a Nazi symbol, arguing that his life and career have been defined by opposition to fascism, racism and Nazism. He also noted that he was never questioned about the tattoo during his military service.
MAINE DEM SENATE HOPEFUL BACKED BY BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES FOR NAZI-STYLE TATTOO, VOWS TO STAY IN RACE
Rather than undergo removal, Platner said he chose to cover the tattoo because tattoo removal services were not readily available near his rural Maine home.
“Going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while,” he told The Associated Press. “I wanted this thing off my body.”
The symbol was ultimately covered with a tattoo featuring a Celtic knot and images of dogs, which Platner said were meant to honor his family pets.
Deleted Reddit posts reveal offensive comments
U.S. Senate candidate from Maine Graham Platner speaks during a campaign event on May 17, 2026, in Portland, Maine. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The keystone scrutiny Platner has faced during his bid stemmed from thousands of now-deleted Reddit posts that resurfaced after he launched his Senate campaign.
In posts first reported by CNN and Politico, Platner referred to himself as a “communist” and “socialist” and endorsed the slogan “all cops are b—–ds.”
In other posts, he argued that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history” and said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”
DELETED POSTS URGING VIOLENCE HAUNT DEMOCRATIC SENATE HOPEFUL IN MAINE RACE
The posts under his since-retired username “P-hustle” were deleted before Platner announced his Democratic Senate bid in August.
The candidate has since addressed the posts multiple times, telling CNN and Politico that he was “f—ing around on the internet” during a period when he felt “lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”
“I made dumb jokes and picked fights,” Platner said. “But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired s—poster.”
In the posts Platner made crude comments about masturbating in port-a-potties and claimed a U.S. service member who took enemy fire in Afghanistan “didn’t deserve to live.”
GRAHAM PLATNER VOWS TO ‘COME AFTER’ BEZOS AS SENATE HOPEFUL ESCALATES BILLIONAIRE TAX FIGHT
The controversies have done little to erode Platner’s standing within the Democratic Party as he has continued to attract national attention and grassroots support in the Democratic primary bid to challenge Sen. Collins for her seat.
Since former Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills halted her campaign in April, much of the party establishment has consolidated behind Platner, and national Democrats have continued to support his candidacy despite the flurry of scandals.
The steady stream of allegations and past controversies has also drawn attention to a little-known provision in Maine election law that allows political parties to replace a nominee under certain circumstances after a primary election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under state law, a candidate who wins a primary and subsequently withdraws by 5 p.m. on July 13 can be replaced by a nominee selected by party officials. Any replacement candidate must then be chosen by 5 p.m. on July 27.
There is currently no indication that Platner plans to withdraw from the race, and the Democratic hopeful has repeatedly vowed to continue his campaign. Still, the provision has drawn renewed interest as questions persist about whether additional revelations could complicate his candidacy.
Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
-
Lifestyle9 minutes ago‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
-
Technology21 minutes agoCyberdecks used to look like little laptops, but now they’re getting more personal
-
World25 minutes agoPete Hegseth warns narco-terrorists as U.S. backs Bolivia’s government amid coup warnings
-
Politics29 minutes agoDemocrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission
-
Health37 minutes agoPopular weight-loss diet shows surprising impact on serious mental health condition
-
Sports39 minutes agoNBA bans two fans for life after court invasion during Knicks-Spurs Game 1
-
Technology45 minutes agoCharter breach warning: What customers should know
-
Business52 minutes agoTrump announces new coal export terminal in Oakland
