PROMISES, PROMISES: FEDS FAILING VICTIMS OF WINTER FIRESTORMS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2025 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“PROMISES, PROMISES: FEDS FAILING VICTIMS OF WINTER FIRESTORMS”

 

So far, the federal government is in large part failing the victims of the firestorms that swept through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena areas of Los Angeles County last January.

 

Things are not the way President Trump said things would be. “We’re going to have you go very quickly,” he promised the fire victims at a press conference staged with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass while the ashes of the Palisades fire still smoked nearby.

 

That’s in part because Trump and other Republicans have linked any substantial aid package to political preconditions, an unprecedented attempt to leverage a major disaster against ideological opponents. Among those goals, thus far resisted by state officials, are changes in water management policies to disregard most endangered species and adopting voter ID laws, a longtime Republican goal.

 

So much for the American tradition of non-partisan disaster relief.

 

There’s also Trump’s concerted attempt to downsize and virtually eliminate FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has taken charge of disaster aftermath measures in virtually all wildfire or hurricane disasters of the last several decades.

 

Trump wants to farm out FEMA’s work to the states and provide far less disaster relief funding than in previous episodes.

 

That’s not the spoken reason FEMA refuses to perform analyses of toxic substances in the topsoil remaining on burned-out lots in both the Palisades and Eaton fire footprints, saying only that the scraping of top layers of each lot by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gives sufficient protection from toxics. Recent soil testing by Los Angeles County officials found elevated lead and arsenic levels at destroyed homes already cleared by Army crews in Altadena, but FEMA officials maintain removing wildfire debris and up to six inches of topsoil is good enough to eliminate immediate public health risks.

 

But what about burned-out homeowners, virtually none of whom is getting toxics-testing funding as part of their homeowner insurance settlements? They have little or no money for testing, one reason only about 200 rebuilding permits had been taken out in the Palisades fire area as of late May.

 

The most common suggestion among researchers and fire victims is for the state to step in where FEMA refuses. But Newsom faces a $12 billion state budget deficit. Every dollar spent on toxics testing for homeowners could be a dollar taken from everything from public schools to state parks to sewer and highway maintenance. So state aid is not likely, especially since the Palisades fire area was previously among the state’s wealthiest enclaves, with an abundance of $3 million-plus home valuations.

 

And yet, who’s going to pull a building permit and stand by while framing of their future home rises from the ashes if they have reason to believe those ashes might somehow poison them?

 

Andrew Whelton, a Purdue University professor and researcher on post-wildfire contamination, told a reporter that comprehensive soil testing is critical for the affected areas’ future health and safety.

 

Newsom at one point asked FEMA to perform detailed tests, but said his request was nixed less than a day after it was posed.

 

It’s been similar for him on Capitol Hill forays to seek $40 billion in general disaster relief for the winter fires. So far, not a penny has cleared the Republican-led Congress.

 

Los Angeles County, meanwhile, did step up in unincorporated Altadena, providing $3 million for soil testing for homeowners downwind of the Eaton fire. But Whelton said that effort – with homeowners submitting one sample to a commercial lab and then having to interpret data on their own – will not provide reliable risk analysis even for people wanting to return to homes that did not burn.

 

Even that effort has not been matched by the city of Los Angeles, of which Pacific Palisades is part. The city now is battling a billion-dollar-plus budget deficit of its own.

 

It adds up to colossal disappointment for all but the wealthiest, who can fund their own testing and analysis, and suggests recovery from the winter fires might not only be far slower than Trump promised, but also slower than after previous major California wildfires, with even worse performances likely after fires yet to come.

 

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

 

NEWSOM’S CEQA CHANGES SCORN THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “NEWSOM’S CEQA CHANGES SCORN THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED”

 

          It looks at times as if Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to imitate Jerry Brown as he tries to gut California’s main environmental protection law, at least for large infrastructure and housing projects.

 

          Brown certainly did reduce the clout of the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, usually pronounced “see-qua”) during his fourth and final term as governor, mainly clearing the way for large sports facilities like the Golden State Warriors’ Chase Center in San Francisco, the Inglewood SoFi Stadium that’s now home to both the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers and the rapidly rising Inglewood basketball arena under construction for the Los Angeles Clippers.

 

          “We have proven we can get it done for stadiums,” said Newsom, “so why…can’t we translate that to all these other projects?” He means large apartment and condominium buildings, roads, reservoirs and bridges. It’s clear he doesn’t want the very people who figure to be most affected by these changes to have any voice in these matters.

 

          This is one facet of a years-long domination of Sacramento by developers and their allies in the building trade unions. Over the last three years, they have moved politicians whose campaigns they largely finance to eliminate virtually all single-family residential zoning around the state, make permitting of small “granny flats” or additional dwelling units almost automatic, allowed creation of six dwelling units on lots formerly occupied by just one and eased building of high-rises near light rail stops or major city bus routes.

 

          Newsom’s several-pronged attempt to ease CEQA takes this farther, seeking a nine-month limit on legal actions under the law. He also wants more funding for planning departments and other agencies that review large-scale plans and other exceptions to the current law.

 

          Essentially, it would have few teeth if Newsom has his way. One pet plan is a long-stymied version of the old Peripheral Canal project, now morphed into a tunnel to bring Sacramento River water south to customers of the state Water Project via a tunnel under the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.

 

          Lawmakers seem prepared to go along. Said Democratic state Senate President Toni Atkins of San Diego, “The climate crisis requires that we move faster to build and strengthen critical infrastructure.”

 

          Both she and Newsom give lip service to the environment while working steadily to denigrate it.

 

          It was much the same under Brown. The onetime seminarian called his efforts to ease CEQA “The Lord’s Work.” In his time, this meant altering CEQA to let developers qualify initiatives for local ballots to OK their projects and then let city councils adopt those initiatives without public votes.

 

          That’s what enabled building both the Chase Center and SoFi Stadium, plus approval for a former SoFi rival stadium once planned in the nearby Los Angeles suburb of Carson.

 

          This will likely be repeated as Los Angeles gets set to host the 2028 Olympics, with some competitions to be staged in various other parts of the state.

 

          All this essentially leaves out the folks most affected by big projects, just like it did in Inglewood, where citizens had nothing to say about razing of the Hollywood Park racetrack and replacing it with SoFi Stadium’s much larger presence.

 

          Wrote attorney Aruna Prabhala of the Center for Biological Diversity, “CEQA offers necessary protections for communities and the environment. We should be wary of exaggerated claims by development interests that suggest otherwise.”

 

          A housing shortage, she said, “does not give us free rein to build recklessly. It’s not clear that the governor has fully considered the unintended consequences of fast-tracking infrastructure projects.”

 

          Added Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, head of the Restore the Delta group that opposes the Delta tunnel plan, “Newsom does not respect the people in communities that need environmental protection,” she said, citing alleged examples from the coronavirus pandemic era.

 

          What’s clear in all this is that if the people most affected by the potential changes in CEQA don’t speak up to their legislators now, Newsom’s plan will pass, developers will have an even freer rein and those most affected by new projects will have even fewer ways to protect themselves, their homes and their lifestyles.  

       

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

Suggested pullout quote: “This essentially leaves out the folks most affected by big projects.”

 

NO SURPRISES AS FIRST TRUMP BUDGET HITS AT CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“NO SURPRISES AS FIRST TRUMP BUDGET HITS AT CALIFORNIA”

          The bleats have been long and loud in California since President Trump’s administration released its first proposed budget, one that won’t be finalized for several months.

This budget can be read many ways, including these: As an initial negotiating position from the author of “The Art of the Deal.” As revenge for California depriving the president of the popular vote victory he so ardently craved. As a prototypical Republican attack on federal spending the party has long opposed in fields from health care to sanctuary cities. It may be all of those and more.

          But this spending plan should not have surprised anyone in California public affairs. Presidents often suggest cuts or additions to federal spending even when they know the items will not fly. This can take public attention away from others they deem truly important. It can represent some first moves toward compromise.

          And presidents have always favored states that favor them and punished those that don’t. So California fared well under Presidents Clinton and Obama. Just ask the tens of thousands of homeowners who collected large sums from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 1994 Northridge earthquake under Clinton or the health insurance clients who got premium subsidies under Obama.

But California had problems securing grants for everything from transportation to education under both Presidents Bush. The new budget indicates there could be worse trouble getting desired federal grants under Trump. So California’s problems in getting its fair share of federal spending will likely grow as the Trump years progress.

          Why be surprised at this when the state’s top officials loudly and proudly bill themselves as leaders of national resistance to Trump’s agenda?

          Yet, those same officials now sound stunned. Said Gov. Jerry Brown, “(The proposed budget) gives a massive break to the wealthiest, while imposing painful and debilitating burdens on tens of millions of decent and hard-working people. It’s unconscionable and un-American.”

          In other words, it’s a fiscal plan promoting the Republican Party’s platform stances of minimizing “entitlement” programs, welfare and federal healthcare subsidies. It’s also a plan that favors the party’s biggest political donors, who often are corporate leaders. Election results matter. So does the Electoral College.

          That’s not to minimize this plan’s potential effects here. The Health Access California organization, for one, says this budget would “rip health care from over 4 million Californians, cut Medi-Cal by 25 percent” at a cost of over $24 billion a year to California. The organization’s executive director, Anthony Wright, complained the budget “would savage California’s health care system, cutting…tens of billions of dollars to hospitals and health providers…(it) would cause carnage to key safety-net services, all to finance massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest.”

          California public and charter schools would also lose about $400 million if a proposed total of $9 billion is cut nationally from education spending. This would affect everything from teacher training and preparation to after-school programs and student loans. Moaned state Schools Supt. Tom Torlakson, “I give this budget an ‘F’ grade for failing public school students.”

         

          There’s also a new bid to punish sanctuary cities, which include California’s largest urban centers. This one would rewrite a federal code section so that cities could no longer block police and other employees from communicating with federal officials about the immigration status of any individual. The budget would condition federal homeland security and law enforcement grants on guarantees that cities comply. And it includes a mandate that local jailers hold releasable prisoners up to 48 hours when federal agents issue requests called “detainers.”

          Taken together, this budget attacks many items that are political dogma in California, but anathema in Southern and Midwestern states that voted heavily for Trump.

          Anyone who’s surprised by all this wasn’t paying attention to the promises Trump made during his campaign last year. Or when Trump appointed key budget officials who have long advocated precisely the changes they now propose.

          The challenge for Californians in Congress and state government who oppose all this will be to find Republicans who back at least some programs that now are threatened. Judge their effectiveness by what’s in the final budget.

         

    -30-       
     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net

WATER RATIONING ALREADY STARTING TO GO WRONG

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“WATER RATIONING ALREADY STARTING TO GO WRONG”

          As expected, it’s now late spring and water rationing is upon California. Despite the heavy mid-February rains that briefly drenched Northern California and the respectable ensuing snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, drought remains.

          It may seem odd, but the opening compulsory rationing measures have come in Northern California, closer to the big rivers now carrying lower-than-usual runoff from the high mountains than the big cities to the south, where water conservation is voluntary, so far.

          Reasons for this include the fact that the Metropolitan Water

District of Southern California draws supplies from the Colorado

River in addition to the Bay Delta region through most of Northern

California’s water flows. The Met has also spent many millions of

dollars over the last 20 years to increase its storage capacity, creating

new reservoirs and upping underground storage.

          So some of the first serious compulsory rationing comes in places

on the fringes of the San Francisco Bay Area, cities like Pleasanton

and Dublin and Santa Cruz, which get much of their water from

local supplies or the state Water Project, but don’t have access to the

water San Francisco draws from its Hetch Hetchy reservoir near

Yosemite National Park.

          Rationing is sensible in some places – like Santa Cruz, where

all homes are now limited to 1,000 cubic feet of water per month, or

about 249 gallons per day. Local officials say the limits are needed

because the area's streams have all but dried up long before their wet

season would normally end.

          But in other places, like Pleasanton, a city of 70,000 on the

eastern edge of the East Bay area, residents and businesses are

compelled to use no more than 75 percent of the water they used at

the same time last year. The more you used in 2013, the more you

can use today without paying penalties, which can see water bills

double or triple upon a first offense and rise on subsequent

violations.

          So the water profligates of a year ago have an advantage over

anyone who conserved water in 2013, when there was already

drought, just not as severe. In short, if neighbors each had lawns of

the same size and one watered freely last year, with no regard for

conservation, but the other installed a drip irrigation system and cut

water use substantially, the one who conserved now can use far less

than his profligate neighbor. How fair is that?

          Inequitable situations like this were common in the major

drought of the 1970s, when homeowners or businesses who saw

drought worsening and realized rationing would ensue sometimes

increased their water use to make sure they would have a good

supply once rationing took hold. No one can prove anybody did

that this year, but it’s very possible and it’s a major flaw where cities

ration according to past use.

          Other water use inequities abound, too. How fair is it that

drought or no drought, Sacramento residents (including tens of

thousands of state officials and bureaucrats) use an average of 279

gallons per day, compared with 98 gallons for San Franciscans and

less than 150 per day for Los Angeles residents, whom Northern

Californians habitually accuse of profligacy? Or for residents of ritzy

Hillsborough on the San Francisco Peninsula to use 334 gallons of

water daily, on average, to just 79 for those in far less fortunate East

Palo Alto?

          Plus, while there’s a water metering program in progess in the

Central Valley, about half the homes there still no have water meters

at all, so owners or tenants can use all they want with no penalties.

          As Southern Californians watch this and realize that given

another year of drought, they will also be rationed, plenty will realize

that the more they use now, the more they’ll be able to use later –

unless water rationing is done on a strict per capita basis. 

          Yes, it can sometimes be difficult to know how many persons

reside in each household, but Census data can help – taken in 2010,

it’s still useful. Any household feeling short-changed could complain

and prove it has more occupants than the Census showed.

          That’s not a perfect system, but if adopted statewide, would at

least be more fair than the patchwork of systems gradually being

imposed now, with rationing just beginning and already starting to

lean toward the unfair.

         

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net