Connect with us

California

California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say | CNN

Published

on

California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say | CNN




CNN
 — 

California is dealing with a disaster. Not solely are its reservoirs already at critically low ranges because of unrelenting drought, residents and companies throughout the state are additionally utilizing extra water now than they’ve in seven years, regardless of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to encourage simply the alternative.

Newsom has pleaded with residents and companies to cut back their water consumption by 15%. However in March, city water utilization was up by 19% in comparison with March 2020, the yr the present drought started. It was the best March water consumption since 2015, the State Water Assets Management Board reported earlier this week.

A part of the issue is that the urgency of the disaster isn’t breaking by to Californians. The messaging round water conservation varies throughout totally different authorities and jurisdictions, so folks don’t have a transparent concept of what applies to whom. They usually actually don’t have a tangible grasp on how a lot a 15% discount is with respect to their very own utilization.

Advertisement

Kelsey Hinton, the communications director of Group Water Heart, a gaggle advocating for reasonably priced entry to wash water, mentioned that city communities — which usually get water from the state’s reservoirs — don’t appear to know the severity of the drought in the best way that rural communities do, the place water may actually cease flowing out of the faucet the second their groundwater reserves are depleted.

“In our work on daily basis, folks really feel how severe that is, and know that we must be working towards actual options to deal with ongoing drought,” Hinton informed CNN. “However then residing in Sacramento, you don’t see the identical urgency right here as a result of we’re not reliant on groundwater and scarce assets in the identical method that these communities are.”

However advocates say authorities officers are additionally specializing in the incorrect method. They are saying voluntary residential water cuts usually are not the answer, and that restrictions needs to be mandated for companies and industries that use the overwhelming majority of the state’s water.

“Company water abuse must be addressed or no different measures will matter,” mentioned Jessica Gable, a spokesperson for Meals & Water Watch.

“The notion in California proper now’s it’s no secret any longer that drought is linked with local weather change,” Gable informed CNN. “However there was no effort to curtail the industries which might be utilizing essentially the most water, that are coincidentally the industries which might be additionally sending out essentially the most emissions which might be fueling the local weather disaster.”

Advertisement

Most of March’s spike in water utilization got here from water jurisdictions in Southern California. Utilization within the South Coast hydrologic area, which incorporates Los Angeles and San Diego County, was up 27% over March 2020, for instance, in keeping with knowledge supplied by the state’s water board. Solely the North Coast area saved water in March, chopping about 4.3% of its use.

Edward Ortiz, spokesperson for the State Water Assets Management Board, mentioned March was an enormous setback for the governor’s water targets.

“It is a regarding growth in our response to the drought as a state,” Ortiz informed CNN. “Making water conservation a lifestyle is a method Californians can reply to those situations. Saving water needs to be a observe regardless of the climate.”

He mentioned Californians “have to redouble efforts to preserve water inside and outdoors of our houses and companies.”

Final month, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California introduced its most extreme water restrictions for residents and companies within the counties round Los Angeles, with a purpose of slashing water use by not less than 35%. Starting June 1, out of doors water utilization might be restricted to someday per week.

Advertisement

However group advocates say residents ponder whether large water customers are additionally confronted with the identical stress and painful selections to preserve – particularly, agriculture that requires a considerable amount of water (issues like almonds, alfalfa, avocado and tomatoes) or fracking, the place tens of tens of millions of gallons of water can be utilized to frack a single fossil gas effectively.

Gable mentioned that whereas each little bit issues, the repeated pleas for people to save lots of water can “appear out of contact at greatest and probably negligent,” provided that the industries that might drastically in the reduction of on the extreme quantity of water allotted to them are hardly ever held accountable.

Amanda Starbuck, analysis director with Meals & Water Watch, mentioned chopping again on residential water use is like telling folks recycling may save the planet. Whereas it’s a significant motion, she mentioned it’s not going to make a dent within the disaster at giant.

“It’s additionally sort of just a little bit demeaning accountable residential use for these crises,” Starbuck informed CNN. “It’s only a small sliver of the general consumption. It’s a a lot larger downside, and we actually want to start out bringing in these large industries which might be guzzling water throughout this time of drought.”

A spokesperson for Newsom’s workplace informed CNN that native water businesses have set new targets since March that ought to result in decrease utilization — together with the out of doors watering restriction — and extra selections are coming in entrance of the state board this month.

Advertisement

“We’re hopeful these actions will considerably contribute to the state’s general water discount targets as out of doors watering is among the greatest single customers of water,” the spokesperson mentioned in an announcement.

The spokesperson additionally pointed to further funding for water resiliency the governor introduced in his price range proposal on Friday. That funding is a part of $47 billion slated to deal with the impacts of the local weather disaster within the state.

“With the infusion of further funding, we can extra successfully attain Californians about the necessity to preserve together with the largest water saving actions they’ll take, and assist native water districts in responding to the drought emergency,” the spokesperson mentioned.

Whereas a lot of the water dialog is concentrated on city utilization, Hinton mentioned rural communities stay with day-to-day nervousness that the water will cease flowing.

“The larger story, not less than for us, is once we are in the midst of drought like this, it’s not simply shorter showers and stopping out of doors water use for our households,” Hinton informed CNN. “Our households are nervous that their water is simply going to cease working all collectively.”

Advertisement

These are communities that don’t depend on reservoirs — the place a lot of the main target has been for reaching critically low ranges — however as an alternative use non-public groundwater wells.

The massive concern is that in extraordinarily dry situations, the state’s groundwater ranges sink whereas extra is pulled up for agriculture and different makes use of.

“The urgency is there with the households we work with, as a result of they know what’s occurred earlier than,” she mentioned. “We now have people who’ve had wells dry up for the reason that final drought and have nonetheless not been capable of afford to deepen them or get linked to a long-term resolution.”

Blistering warmth waves, worsening drought and damaging wildfires have plagued the West in recent times. As these vivid pictures of local weather disaster play out, Hinton believes the state must prioritize the water wants of people over business.

“Local weather change has made drought a actuality for us ceaselessly, and now, that is one thing that we have now to take care of as a state,” Hinton mentioned. “And the extra that we will settle for that and be proactive, the much less we’re going to be consistently reacting to those conditions of total communities going dry or of city areas having to chop water to this quantity as a result of we’ve already overused what was accessible to us.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

California coastal agency erodes climate and housing goals

Published

on

California coastal agency erodes climate and housing goals


In the midst of a burgeoning environmental movement, California voters in 1972 approved Proposition 20, which created the California Coastal Commission and gave it nearly dictatorial powers over development decisions along the state’s coastline.

Like with most state bureaucracies, Californians have come to accept it as part of the reality of life. Lawmakers have done little, even when the agency abuses its power by, say, fighting a disabled resident’s effort to build a wheelchair-friendly home or quashing a proposed desalination plant over concerns about its impact on plankton. The commission exerts power to reject projects as far as five miles inland.

Over the years, most of the complaints about the commission have come from conservatives and libertarians given the impact of its decisions on private property rights. In 2001, a judge found the agency to be unconstitutional because it wielded executive, legislative and judicial powers. The Legislature reacted quickly by changing the terms of commission appointments – and it has continued along its merry way ever since.

But now the commission is finally getting much-deserved scrutiny from other ideological factions. In recent years, YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yarders) have battled against NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yarders) over development issues. The former have noted that the latter have used environmental laws to stop housing construction and transit projects that advance the state’s climate goals.

Advertisement

A new report, “A Better Coastal Commission,” from an urbanist group called Circulate San Diego has launched a direct critique of the Coastal Commission. And while we don’t fully agree with the group’s pro-transit and high-density land-use goals, we believe it makes crucial points about how no-growth rules drive up housing prices by limiting supply. They also force people into longer commutes, thus undermining the state’s climate and transportation goals.

The report rehashes widely known statistics about housing affordability in the coastal zone – and notes that commission regulations significantly increased housing costs in coastal communities. Soaring coastal housing costs, it adds, has a ripple effect on prices even in non-coastal areas. That situation also has led to racial segregation, it explains, with home prices and rents in coastal areas becoming unattainable for large segments of the population.

The researchers provide “numerous examples where the Coastal Commission has resisted, opposed, and delayed the construction of deed-restricted affordable homes. … Similarly, this report documents examples where the Coastal Commission opposes projects that the Legislature encourages as a part of California’s efforts to combat climate change,” including bicycle lanes and infill developments. This offers fodder for YIMBYs who have battled the commission over bills to expand by-right development approvals to the coastal zone.

The commission took umbrage to the allegations, per a San Diego Union-Tribune report. For instance, commissioners argued that most of the highlighted projects ultimately gained approval. However, the Coastal Commission and its no-growth attitudes have no doubt slowed many projects – and discouraged developers from proposing them in the first place. It’s no surprise that regulations that limit development end up limiting the high-density, transit-oriented projects that many people on the Left seem to like.

Our solution is simple: Reduce the commission’s power and respect property rights. Then developments of all sorts can proceed. California might then gain the chance to address a housing-affordability crisis that is spiraling out of control.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California doctor who drove Tesla off cliff with family inside won’t face trial, granted mental health diversion

Published

on

California doctor who drove Tesla off cliff with family inside won’t face trial, granted mental health diversion


The “suicidal” California doctor accused of intentionally driving his Tesla off a cliff with his wife and two young children inside won’t face trial for attempted murder as he is instead set to begin a mental health diversion program.

Dharmesh Patel, who was granted admission into the two-year program last Thursday at the San Mateo County Court, will remain in jail for “several weeks” before he’s released, the San Mateo District Attorney told NBC News.

The radiologist, who has spent the last 18 months behind bars. will be released from jail to his parent’s home where he will be ordered not to leave.

He will also have to report to court weekly for a progress report.

Advertisement

Patel will be ordered to be tested twice a week “to show medication compliance,” and will have to abstain from drugs and alcohol while also forfeiting his driver’s license and passport, the outlet reported.

Dharmesh Patel won’t face trial for his attempted murder charges after his admittance into a mental health diversion program. David G. McIntyre for NY Post

The doctor will return to court on July 1 where details of his release will be determined, a spokesperson for District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe told NBC News.

Judge Susan Jakubowski granted Patel admission to the program while the DA’s office “intensely” opposed it.

The radiologist appeared “by all accounts a kind and loving” father, said Jakubowski on Thursday, adding that Patel would be better served in treatment than in jail, the Mercury News reported.

Last week’s ruling was made after evidence was found showing Patel has major depressive disorder.

Advertisement
Patel was accused of driving his Tesla Model Y off the 250-foot cliff off “Devil’s Slide” on Highway 1 and landing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean in Jan. 2023. AP
Miraculously, Patel, his wife and their two children — a 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son — all survived. Facebook/Neha Patel

In April two doctors testified in court that Patel suffered from “major depressive order” and experienced a “psychotic” break during the attempted murder-suicide on Jan. 2, 2023.

The Tesla Model Y plummeted off the 250-foot cliff off “Devil’s Slide” on Highway 1 and landed on the shore of the Pacific Ocean.

Miraculously, Patel, his wife and their two children — a 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son — all survived.

Patel was arrested and later charged with three counts of attempted murder. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges saying the Tesla experienced a malfunction causing the car to careen off the cliff.

His wife Neha later told investigators her husband had suffered from depression before the crash.

Advertisement

“He’s depressed. He’s a doctor. He said he was going to drive off the cliff. He purposefully drove off,” Neha told rescuers.

During his testimony, psychologist Mark Patterson said Patel’s delusions were provoked by the nation’s fentanyl crisis, the war in Ukraine and feared his children could be kidnapped and molested, which appeared to have been connected to Patel’s worries about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

In May, Neha Patel begged prosecutors to drop the charges and admit her husband into the program.

In April two doctors testified in court that Patel suffered from “major depressive order” and experienced a “psychotic” break during the attempted murder-suicide. AP
Neha Patel later told investigators her husband had suffered from depression before the crash. Facebook/Neha Patel

“We need him in our lives and it has been over a year and a half since my children or I have seen or spoken to Dharmesh,” she said.

The doctor was deemed a good candidate for the program because he’s at low risk of injuring anyone else and has shown progress with his treatment since the crash, Patterson said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California Shelves Repeal of 1950 Housing Law That Stoked Racial Tension | KQED

Published

on

California Shelves Repeal of 1950 Housing Law That Stoked Racial Tension | KQED


“While SCA 2 was one of many efforts to help address the housing crisis, the November’s ballot will be very crowded, and reaching voters will be difficult and expensive,” Allen said in a statement. “In addition, the legislature recently passed my SB 469, which substantially addresses some of the most significant concerns about how Article 34 might be impacting housing production.”

SB 469 clarifies that the use of state affordable housing dollars does not trigger Article 34’s requirement for voter approval. Allen said his focus is on determining whether these efforts are “making a significant dent in addressing the problem,” adding that quickly building more affordable housing is a priority.

Backed by the California Real Estate Association, the forerunner to the current California Association of Realtors, Article 34 was first adopted by voters in 1950. Realtors played on voters’ fears that affordable housing would lead to greater racial integration of exclusively white neighborhoods.

CAR issued a formal apology in 2022 for its past support of Article 34, with association President Otto Catrina condemning the actions and vowing to address the legacy of its “discriminatory policies and practices.”

Advertisement

The organization “remains a strong supporter of the repeal of Article 34 … which adds unnecessary hurdles and costs to the creation of affordable housing,” CAR spokesperson Sanjay Wagle said in a statement.

Wagle noted that a majority of Californians support repealing the provision but cited research showing a voter education campaign would be needed to explain the article’s effects.

“The cost of such a campaign in an election year with so many initiatives on the ballot made this campaign more costly and difficult, thus making it more logical to pursue a repeal on a future ballot,” Wagle wrote. “We thank Sen. Allen and Sen. Wiener for their efforts on this repeal effort and look forward to working [with] them and other stakeholders on this issue in the future.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending