---

---

When I tell other surfers that I lived in Brazil for six months, I’m often asked how I dealt with the localism. There seems to be some underlying assumption that all Brazilian surfers will kick your ass with Jiu Jitsu if you paddle out at their local breaks. And even when I arrived in Brazil, I admittedly subscribed to this preconceived notion. But after surfing all around the states of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo over the course of six months (including testing my luck at a certain secret spot in Rio), I can report back that I experienced virtually zero problems in Brazilian lineups. To the contrary, the Brazilian lineup vibes were typically pretty relaxed compared to what I am used to back home in California.

Then last week I was tasked with covering the latest update in the Lunada Bay localism lawsuit saga. Localism was fresh on my mind and it led me to ponder a paradox: Why do surfers from California, most of whom, to varying degrees, have grown accustomed to putting up with verbal abuse and the odd fist fight, tend to think that localism must be worse elsewhere? In my 18 years of surfing on every continent except Antarctica, my experience tells me the opposite. Localism, at least over a wide region and population of this size, is at its worst in my home state of California.

My worldview has been, of course, shaped by my experiences. Others might beg to differ. And there definitely are small pockets of places around the world where, on paper, worse localism issues. But I think that humans in general, including us surfers, are susceptible to bias that strengthens our perceived safety of the places that we live in and know intimately, while elevating the perceived risk of the places that are foreign to us, like in my example of surfing in Brazil.

I grew up and learned to surf in Santa Cruz. When I started in 2006, the infamous localism of the 1990s Santa Cruz scene was already fading, but even so, getting threatened by men twice my age came with the territory. I got used to it. 

I’d watch older guys chase out SUP surfers and longboarders from their shortboard-only breaks. Or a loud guy with a dad-bod would dictate who could and couldn’t surf near him at the top of the peak. And even my first time ever surfing, on a one-foot day, some idiots threw rocks at me and my friends from the cliffs. I guess my lime-green soft-top had a “hit me” sign on it.

Then I relocated from Santa Cruz to San Diego where I lived for 10 years. It was largely the same story down there: Angry locals at jetty waves who think they own the spot, intentional drop-ins at a reef accessed only by boat, a friend who got smacked in the head for wearing a GoPro, and a spot where a no-leash policy is enforced by a small group. 

The Lunada Bay story was the most well-publicized, and arguably the most severe, but it is definitely not unique along California’s expansive coast.

And it’s not that I haven’t experienced any of this behavior abroad. I have. I was kicked out of a lineup on the African isle of Mauritius – a spot notorious for its localism – simply for being a foreigner. Just a few months ago I was aggressively called a “f*%cking asshole” in Costa Rica for a minor disagreement on paddling etiquette. And one bad apple on Reunion Island decided that he would take all my waves because he “hadn’t seen me there before.” 

You might find some degree of localism anywhere you go, but my experiences of surfing abroad have led me to feel that wide-reaching localism, on average, is more pervasive at home in California. The locals in Panama and Sri Lanka gave me nothing but smiles. In Japan the local surfers rolled out the red carpet to us visitors. When I spent three months in mainland Mexico this year, the locals were happy to share their lineups. And even in crowded, chaotic, foreigner-filled lineups in Indonesia, things remained relatively cordial. 

I have not been everywhere in the world and I do understand the role measured localism plays in keeping a lineup safe. I’ve never been to Australia, the North Shore of Oahu, or the pay-to-play Mexican point breaks, for example. So, who knows, maybe my opinion could change. But from the localism data I’ve gathered, California takes the cake. Perhaps this is due to large swaths of California likely having the most surfers per square mile in the world over an area of that size. There are plenty of California surf spots, similar to Lunada Bay, some that I’ve surfed and some that I won’t bother, where you are all but guaranteed to run into trouble.

While my analysis of localism may seem dispiriting, it really isn’t. I’ve found most surfers, whether at home or around the world, are friendly folks and the common denominator of holding a surfboard creates a bridge that can easily connect you with others. But as I was writing about Lunada Bay last week, I couldn’t help but contemplate my global experiences with localism and how my fellow California surfers tend to downplay its impacts at home while they amplify the issue elsewhere.

There is a new stimulus payment available in the Golden State, but to be eligible, you must first meet some specific requirements. If you currently reside in California, most specifically the City of Pomona, you could earn up to $9,000 in total benefits. A pilot program known as the Universal Household Grant offered residents of the City of Pomona who were impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak up to $500 each month for eighteen months. Learn more about this stimulus payment initiative, along with all the requirements for 2024. 

How can you apply for the stimulus payment in the City of Pomona?

According to the Pomona stimulus payment initiative, interested applicants should apply before Monday, July 8th, at 11:00 pm. It is important to underscore that households may apply even if they receive state benefits such as Medicaid, MediCal, Pell Grants, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) program. Additionally, to be eligible to receive the $500 monthly payment for more than one year, applicants should meet the following requirements: 

• Must be 18 years of age or older.
• Live in the city of Pomona.
• You must be the parent or legal guardian of a child under the age of four at the time you apply.
• Have been impacted by the Covid-19 epidemic.
• Set an income limit at or below 65% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
• Must agree to an informed consent form.

Besides providing households with monthly payments to cover their monthly expenses, the Pomona stimulus payment program aims to examine the impact of economic aid on the most needy families, who will be eligible for bonuses of up to $50 if they participate in surveys and training sessions.

Understand how the application process works, step by step

In total, 600 qualified applicants are selected at random for participation in the program and are assigned to one of two groups. In the paid group, two hundred and fifty (250) eligible applicants will be selected. They will receive incentive payments of $500 per month for 18 months. Likewise, another 350 eligible individuals will be selected to participate in the control group and will receive a subsidy of $20 per month for eighteen months for having participated.

Furthermore, candidates should know that regardless of whether they are part of the paid or controlled group, they will receive a $50 bonus for completing each survey administered by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Pomona’s HUGs program will provide free benefits counseling and resource navigation services to select applicants in both its fee-for-service and control groups. Los Angeles County will also provide additional options, such as career counseling, parenting classes, and financial coaching.

When will eligible households receive their $500 stimulus payment?

From all eligible applications, the Pomona Stimulus Payment Program will randomly select 600 participants. Those selected will be divided into two groups: a payment group of approximately 250 applicants, each receiving a $500 monthly stipend; and a control group of 350 applicants, each receiving a $20 monthly stipend. In contrast, the control group will consist of 350 applicants. Lastly, eligible candidates will receive a stipend of $20 per month for one year and a half. 

There will be another lottery after the start of the payments in which 300 program participants—150 from each group—will be randomly selected to have the resource navigation services at no cost. As previously mentioned, don’t forget that the deadline to apply for these stimulus payments is July 8 at 11:00 p.m. PST, so if you’re interested, you’ll want to apply as soon as possible. On July 10th, selected candidates will be chosen by lottery. Those chosen will receive their first payment from the City of Pomona’s Income Security Program on August 26.

Dive Brief:

• California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board approved a standard on indoor, workplace heat exposure impacting indoor workplaces, the board announced last week.
• The new standards apply to indoor work areas where the temperature or heat index reach 87 degrees Fahrenheit or 82 degrees in areas with a high degree of radiant heat or in workplaces where workers wear clothing or gear that significantly restricts bodily heat loss. It also applies to workplaces where the temperature reaches 82 degrees, though with a large number of exceptions.
• Employers covered by the rule must provide access to clean drinking water and cool down areas to workers, with the latter defined as areas away from radiant heat sources, where workers can sit without touching each other, and where the air temperature is below 82 degrees, unless employers can demonstrate this is infeasible.

Dive Insight:

By the end of May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded 12 consecutive months of record breaking global heat, and June has already seen major heatwaves in California and the eastern United States. Given the steady increase in both global average temperature and global atmospheric carbon dioxide, as measured by NASA, the hazards heat poses to workers are likely to increase.

Because most restaurant work occurs indoors, restaurant workers may be more insulated from the immediate dangers of extreme heat than workers in primarily outdoor occupations, like construction and agriculture, but higher temperatures can strain HVAC systems.

Some restaurant workers have staged workplace actions in protest of high kitchen temperatures. In San Jose, California, workers staged a one-day strike at a Taco Bell in June to protest conditions they said included extreme heat, according to a press release from the California Fast Food Workers Union. Later in June, QSR workers, including Popeyes employees, organized rallies in Durham, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina and Atlanta demanding consistent breaks with free water and adequate air conditioning, the Union of Southern Service Workers said in a statement. 

Recently, a viral LinkedIn post claimed Chick-fil-A had provided some of its workers with cooling gear. Such cooling technology, however, is the lowest rung in the hierarchy of controls, a system of classifying safety practices. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, PPE is less likely to be effective than practices that eliminate hazards, replace hazardous conditions with safer conditions, isolate workers from hazards through the built environment, or change the way employees work to avoid encountering hazards. 

The California heat rule states that employers can use administrative controls where engineering controls are not feasible, and PPE where administrative controls are not feasible in an effort to reduce workers’ heat exposure.

The rule requires employers with high-heat work spaces to maintain accurate records of temperature and the heat index, whichever is greater. California will also mandate employers provide cooling breaks to workers in hot conditions.

The Office of Administrative Law has 30 working days from June 20, when the rule was approved, to review the proposed regulation. OSHSB asked the OAL to let the regulation take effect immediately upon approval.