On October 10, the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) directed states to hold off on submitting their benefit issuance files for November payments to EBT vendors, effectively delaying the issuance of Calfresh benefits until further notice. If funding is not restored, households may not receive CalFresh benefits in November, worsening food insecurity for vulnerable populations.

The State of California has already acknowledged that its ability to continue federally funded programs, including CalFresh, is jeopardized without congressional action.

 What you can do

If you have questions about why your CalFresh benefits will not be issued, please contact your local Congressman and/or California U.S. Senators.

 Congressman:

Vince Fong

• Washington, D.C. Office: 243 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
  Phone: (202) 225‑2915
• District Offices:
  • Clovis, CA — 2187 Herndon Avenue, Suite 101; Phone: (559) 701‑2530
  • Bakersfield, CA — 9700 Stockdale Highway, Suite 300; Phone: (661) 327‑3611

David Valadao

• Washington, D.C. Office: 2465 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515;

Phone: (202) 225‑4695

• District Offices:
  • Bakersfield, CA — 2700 M Street, Suite 250B; Phone: (661) 864‑7736
  • Hanford, CA — 107 South Douty Street; Phone: (559) 460‑6070

Jim Costa

• Washington, D.C. Office: 2081 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515;

Phone: (202) 225‑3341

• District Offices:
  • Fresno, CA — 2440 Tulare Street, Suite 420; Phone: (559) 495‑1620
  • Visalia, CA — 425 E Oak Ave, Suite 202; Phone: (559) 749‑9330

 Senators:

Alex Padilla

• Washington, D.C. Office: 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
• Phone (D.C.): (202) 224‑3553
• California Offices
• San Francisco: 333 Bush St., Suite 3225, San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 981‑9369
• Los Angeles: 255 E. Temple St., Suite 1860, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Phone: (310) 231‑4494

Adam Schiff

• Washington, D.C. Office: 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
• Phone (D.C.): (202) 224‑3841
• California Offices:
  • San Francisco: 1 Post St., Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: (415) 393‑0707

• • Fresno: 2500 Tulare St., Suite 4290, Fresno, CA 93721

Phone: (559) 485‑7430

The post Federal Shutdown Threatens November CalFresh (SNAP) Benefits appeared first on Valley Voice.

Supervisors Pete Vander Poel, Amy Shuklian, Larry Micari and Dennis Townsend voted to adopt the resolution.

Currently, California has a non-partisan commission to draw congressional districts with heavy input from communities. If Prop 50 passes, a map with new congressional districts drawn by the legislature would last through 2030, after which the process of drawing districts would revert back to the redistricting commission.

The proposition, also known as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would allow the adoption of maps that potentially swing five Republican seats in the House of Representatives to Democrats and provide greater Democratic advantages in other seats.

Opponents have called the proposition a power grab by Democratic legislators that wastes taxpayer funds, while proponents claim the move is a necessary response to efforts in Republican-led states like Texas, Florida, Ohio, and others, that aim to unseat Democratic lawmakers through similar map changes.

Democrats currently need three seats to win control of the House of Representatives in 2026 – leading to similar discussions of map changes by Democratic governors in Illinois, New York, and Maryland.

“Republicans have more opportunities across the map to gerrymander House districts than Democrats,” according to an ABC News analysis. “In most states where Democrats are in control of the statehouse and governor’s mansion, there are legal and constitutional barriers to revisiting their maps in the middle of the decade as a result of previous efforts to install independent commissions and, in some cases, prior state court rulings.”

The Board of Supervisors, in their individual comments, agreed with the opposition to Prop 50.

“The only reason we are being asked to play these political games is because our governor has presidential aspirations. He is not looking out for the people but his own well-being and his own future,” Vander Poel, the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, said.

Staying neutral versus taking a stand

Valero was not present for the vote but gave the Valley Voice a statement after the meeting.

“I believe we should remain focused on our core responsibilities as a nonpartisan Board of Supervisors. These responsibilities include roads, streetlights, infrastructure, and public safety. Our residents expect us to deliver results and not spend taxpayer dollars and staff time on issues outside the scope of our role,” Valero said. “My priority has always been good governance and serving the people of Tulare County with integrity and fiscal responsibility.”

Valero also wanted to clarify a statement made by Micari during the meeting.

“It was claimed that I did not support the 2020 redistricting process. That is simply untrue. The public record and meeting recordings clearly show that I praised the process multiple times from the dais then and I do so now,” he said.

In her comments at the meeting, Shuklian struck a similar tone to Valero.

“I’m disappointed because this is an extremely partisan issue and that we, as a non-partisan board, are bringing this forward and making a political statement. This is not good for our constituents, or our county, or the look of the board,” she said.

But Shuklian added that she did not agree with allowing the legislature to rewrite the districts.

Micari said that he does not see the board’s vote to oppose Prop 50 as partisan at all.

“I see it as the right thing to do,” he said. “It’s a huge waste of time and resources that we are paying for and its not fair that our constituents get stuck with the bill. This is because someone wants to run for president. That’s what it boils down to.”

Townsend added he objected to the fact that the authority to redraw the districts would be given to one person. He added that the districts are already drawn in the event Prop 50 passes.

“One person drew it so that’s very, very anti-democratic,” said Townsend.

Porterville Vice-Mayor Ed McKervey gave a public comment encouraging the board to oppose Prop 50.

“It’s just political brinksmanship,” he said. McKervey was also opposed to the state allegedly spending $350 million to get the proposition on the ballot.

Jim Reeves, a Visalia resident, said he preferred the supervisors to stay neutral on the issue – and, if not, to encourage their constituents to vote for Prop 50.

Reeves did not think it was fair for President Trump “to change the rules in the middle of the game” and added that ”it’s entirely appropriate for California to respond and let the people vote on it.”

How are other counties reacting?

With few surprises, conservative county boards are voting to oppose the proposition and liberal counties’ boards are voting to support Prop 50.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose Prop. 50 in a 3-1 vote, with one supervisor abstaining. Boards in Siskiyou, Yuba and Shasta voted unanimously to issue a statement of opposition to Proposition 50. Congressmember Doug LaMalfa represents those three counties and is one of the targets of California’s redistricting.

One outlier is San Joaquin County – whose supervisors voted to stay neutral.

A CBS Sacramento report stated that the San Joaquin County board voted a resolution to oppose Prop 50 down in a 3-2 vote.

“It sends a message to people that you know, that this is a divided question and divided issue, and how do we do it? We have to let the voters do it,” Democratic Supervisor Paul Canepa told CBS Sacramento. “At the end of the day, people need to get out and vote and vote their preferences. I don’t agree right now that San Joaquin County needs to get in the middle of this because you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

Who does Prop 50 target specifically?

Prop 50 targets five vulnerable Republicans and boosts Democrats in difficult races to retain their seats in the 2026 election.

The five targeted Republicans are Doug LaMalfa, whose district is close to the Oregon border (CA-01), Kevin Kiley who represents the Eastern Sierra (CA-03), Kevin Calvert representing Inland Empire (CA-41), Darrell Issa who represents Eastern San Diego (CA-48), and David Valadao (CA-22) representing Kings, Kern, and Fresno Counties as well as parts of Tulare County.

Valadao’s is one of the rare swing districts in California, where he has consistently beats the odds even with a majority of registered Democrats. He once lost once to Democrat TJ Cox in 2018 – characterized by some as voters’ reaction to his vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act – but he later won his seat back in 2020.

Three of the five Democrats who would receive a boost from the redrawn maps are in the Central Valley; Josh Harder who represents San Joaquin County, Adam Gray who represents the Merced area and local representative Jim Costa.

To flip Republican seats, Prop 50 would take votes away from Democrats in districts with a large margin of victory. It is anticipated that Democratic candidates in those districts would still easily win their election.

How to vote

The special election is November 4. There are no other statewide elections on the ballot.

According to the Tulare County Registrar of Voters, ballots were mailed October 6. Voters can return their ballot by mail (no postage needed) or drop it off at any official ballot drop box location.

The registrar of voters is warning that if you mail your ballot on November 4, even before the collection time, it will not be postmarked until the next day.

On Election Day voters can drop their ballot off at one of Tulare County’s 15 ballot drop boxes – open 24/7 until 8:00 PM on Election Day – or at any of the 40 polling places open from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.

The post Tulare County Supervisors vote to oppose Proposition 50 appeared first on Valley Voice.

Tilting a Tilted Playing Field

Proposition 50 calls for replacement of the congressional districts drawn by the nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission after the 2020 Census. The proposed new district boundaries were created by Democratic members of the State Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and would be more favorable to their party. Supporters claim the move is needed to counter Republican-led midterm remapping intended to maintain a GOP majority in Congress.

Already, legislatures in Texas and Missouri have remapped their congressional districts to weigh them in favor of the GOP. The Florida legislature is also in the process of a midterm remapping to favor Republicans. Ohio, too, is redrawing its maps before 2026 midterm elections to comply with that state’s constitutional requirement for bipartisan agreement.

Lawsuits regarding congressional redistricting are also multiplying. Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin all have ongoing litigation regarding congressional redistricting.

In California, Prop 50 gerrymanders the current nonpartisan maps and keeps the partisan map in place until the next Census in 2030. The Prop 50 map complies with federal requirements, but not with the strict fairness required of the Citizens Redistricting Committee. Prop 50 also calls on Congress to create “fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions” in every state to avoid future partisan battles.

Prop 50 alters the state constitution, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the cost to the state at $200,000. But the change could cost individual counties millions.

Prop 50 goes before voters during a special election on Tuesday, November 4.

State Chamber of Commerce Takes a Neutral Stance

The state’s business leaders appear to be taking a wait-and-see attitude over the partisan fight. In a vote on September 19, the California Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors decided not to take sides.

Instead, they leave individual voters to make their own choice on this hot-potato issue.

“We trust California voters to decide if Proposition 50 is in their interest and urge all voters to be informed and make their voices heard,” said Board President Maryam Brown in a statement.

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, however, is supporting the initiative. In line with other supporters, the LA Chamber’s leadership believes a greater federal presence would give California commerce a boost.

“As the nation’s gateway to global trade and the world’s fourth-largest economy, our businesses need stable, accountable, and competitive federal policies to thrive,” said a statement from Maria S. Salinas, the group’s president and CEO. “Proposition 50 helps ensure California businesses are not disadvantaged in federal policy debates, [while] safeguarding critical investments in housing, healthcare, transportation, and disaster relief.”

Locally, the Tulare Chamber of Commerce has yet to take a position on Prop 50, said CEO Donnette Silva Carter. Its board, she said, will discuss the matter formally at its upcoming meeting.

Local Political Leaders Uneasy Over Prop 50

For Visalia City Council member Emmauel Soto, a Democrat, the change Prop 50 would bring makes sense in maintaining a balance of power at the federal level. But he’s not sure about the timing.

“It’s definitely premature, but when you look at the dynamics going on around you, you can see why it’s being done,” he said. “You don’t want to go to this level, but I think you have to when other states are doing it.”

Yet he’s not sure there’s time to delay in making this countermove. The Democratic Party has to engage effectively, he said, and the party’s leaders and members recognize a need to exert their influence sooner than later.

“If you look at all the special elections going on around the country, you see the trend. I think they know that,” Soto said. “They got straight to work in other states. I think sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.”

He also noted that California’s Democrats are handling the situation more openly by asking voters for their approval.

“When you see what’s going on across the country in other states and folks not even getting to vote on it,” Soto said. “It makes you feel a little better to have the folks have a choice.”

However, the change Democrats want cannot be accomplished with voter approval, as it was elsewhere.

County Supervisor Larry Micari, a Republican, is strongly against Prop 50, citing the state Citizens Redistricting Committee’s unusually fair and transparent congressional mapping process. The current map was created in 2021.

“I’m not supportive of it at all,” Micari said. “The law is in place. We just went through the process. We got praised for transparency.”

Citizens Redistricting Committee chair Jeanne Raya, a Democrat, agrees with Micari.

“As a registered Democrat, I would celebrate replacing members of Congress who have forgotten their oath to serve constituents and protect the Constitution,” she said in an opinion piece for CalMatters.org. “But it can’t be at the expense of California’s Constitution, nor its voters who mandated fair, nonpartisan redistricting.”

Is the Districting Process Broken?

For Soto, Prop 50 is a distasteful but needed move to check Republican power. Yet he’d rather the issue could be avoided.

“Am I 100 percent? I’d say I’m very close. I do think it’s premature. I wish we didn’t have to do this,” he said.

While Soto said he supports the move now, it would not have been his preferred approach.

“I’m not one to come out and say this is what we should have done,” he said. “But when you look at the data and trends from special elections, you’re going to see a swing in one or two of the houses. I know our president is trying to minimize that swing. If this is going to offset this, I’m for it.”

Micari, on the other hand, doesn’t see the need for Prop 50.

“I can see it if there were a problem, but we’ve got a process in place,” he said. “If something is broken and there’s a problem, yeah, but it’s not broken.”

He also sees it as a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere to bolster unfunding programs already in place.

“It’s state money they don’t have. It’s just ridiculous,” he said. “It’s a waste of taxpayer money. There are a lot of programs that are in jeopardy.”

Soto doesn’t think it will fix the balance of power, and he’s not willing to tell voters what they should do.

“Even with California doing this, I still think it’s going to be unfair. I don’t think this is something anyone wants to see or have to pay for,” he said. “I don’t think it’s up to me to tell people how to vote. You hope they do their own research, come to a good conclusion, and go and vote.”

The post Local opinions divided on Prop 50 state political redistricting appeared first on Valley Voice.

Court research by Robert Lewis, Lauren Hepler, Anat Rubin, Sergio Olmos, Cayla Mihalovich, Ese Olumhense, Ko Bragg, Andrew Donohue and Jenna Peterson

Ivan Dimov was convicted of reckless driving in 2013, after fleeing police in Washington state while his passenger allegedly dumped heroin out the window. Before that, he got six DUIs in California over a six-year period. None of that would keep him off the road.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles reissued him a driver’s license in 2017. The next year, on Christmas Eve, he drove drunk again, running stop signs and a traffic light in midtown Sacramento, going more than 80 mph, court records show. He T-boned another car, killing a 28-year-old man who was going home to feed the cat before heading to his mom’s for the holiday.

Kostas Linardos had 17 tickets — including for speeding, reckless driving and street racing — and had been in four collisions. Then, in November 2022, he gunned his Ram 2500 truck as he entered a Placer County highway and slammed into the back of a disabled sedan, killing a toddler, court records show. He’s now facing felony manslaughter charges.

In December of last year, while that case was open, the DMV renewed his driver’s license.

Ervin Wyatt’s history behind the wheel spreads across two pages of a recent court filing: Fleeing police. Fleeing police again. Running a red light. Causing a traffic collision. Driving without a license, four times. A dozen speeding tickets.

Yet the DMV issued him a license in 2019. Wyatt promptly got three more speeding tickets, court records show. Prosecutors say he was speeding again in 2023 when he lost control and crashed into oncoming traffic, killing three women. He’s now facing murder charges in Stanislaus County.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles routinely allows drivers like these — with horrifying histories of dangerous driving, including DUIs, crashes and numerous tickets — to continue to operate on our roadways, a CalMatters investigation has found. Too often they go on to kill. Many keep driving even after they kill. Some go on to kill again.

With state lawmakers grappling with how to address the death toll on our roads, CalMatters wanted to understand how California handles dangerous drivers. We first asked the district attorneys for all 58 counties to provide us with a list of their vehicular manslaughter cases from 2019 through early last year. Every county but Santa Cruz provided the information.

Because California has no centralized court system and records aren’t online, we then traveled to courthouses up and down the state to read through tens of thousands of pages of files. Once we had defendants’ names and other information, we were able to get DMV driver reports for more than 2,600 of the defendants, providing details on their recent collisions, citations and license status.

The court records and driving histories reveal a state so concerned with people having access to motor vehicles for work and life that it allows deadly drivers to share our roads despite the cost. Officials may call driving a privilege, but they treat it as a right — often failing to take drivers’ licenses even after they kill someone on the road.

We found nearly 40% of the drivers charged with vehicular manslaughter since 2019 have a valid license.

That includes a driver with two separate convictions for vehicular manslaughter, for crashes that killed a 16-year-old girl in 2009 and a 25-year-old woman in 2020. In July of last year, the DMV issued him a driver’s license.

The agency gave licenses to nearly 150 people less than a year after they allegedly killed someone on the road, we found. And while the agency has since suspended some of those, often after a conviction, the majority remain valid. In Santa Clara County, a man prosecutors charged with manslaughter got his current license just a month and a half after the collision that killed a mother of three young children.

And many drivers accused of causing roadway deaths don’t appear to have stopped driving recklessly. Records show that nearly 400 got a ticket or were in another crash — or both — after their deadly collisions.

A commercial driver drove his semi truck on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic, killing a motorcyclist in Kern County in 2021. Less than a year later, he still had a valid license when he barreled his semi into slow-moving traffic, hitting four vehicles and killing a woman in Fresno County, records show. Another man, sentenced to nine years in prison for killing two women while driving drunk, got his privileges restored by the DMV after being paroled, only to drive high on meth in Riverside and weave head-on into another car, killing a woman.

“It is somewhat shocking to see how much you can get away with and still be a licensed driver in the state of California,” Placer County District Attorney Morgan Gire said. “I don’t think anyone fully understands what you need to do behind the wheel to lose your driving privilege.”

Almost as interesting as the information in the drivers’ DMV records is what’s not there.

Hundreds of drivers’ DMV records simply don’t list convictions for manslaughter or another crime related to a fatal crash, we found. The apparent error means some drivers who should have their driving privileges suspended instead show up in DMV records as having a valid license.

The cases we reviewed cut across demographics and geography. Defendants include farmworkers and a farm owner. They include off-duty police officers and people with lengthy rap sheets, drivers who killed in a fit of rage and others whose recklessness took the lives of those they loved most — high school sweethearts, siblings, children. The tragedies span this vast state. From twisty two-lane mountain roads near the Oregon border to the dusty scrubland touching Mexico. From the crowded streets of San Francisco to the highways of the Inland Empire. From Gold Country, to timber country, to Silicon Valley, to the almond capital of the world. So much death. More people than are killed by guns.

Dangerous drivers are able to stay on the roads for many reasons. The state system that targets motorists who rack up tickets is designed to catch clusters of reckless behavior, not long-term patterns. And while there are laws requiring the DMV to suspend a driver’s license for certain crimes, like DUIs, there is no such requirement for many vehicular manslaughter convictions.

It’s often up to the DMV whether to act. Routinely it doesn’t.

The DMV declined to make its director, Steve Gordon — who has been in charge since Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him in 2019 — available for an interview to discuss our findings.

Chris Orrock, a DMV spokesperson, said the agency follows the law when issuing licenses. “We use our authority as mandated and as necessary,” he said.

Even when the DMV does take away motorists’ driving privileges, state officials, law enforcement and the courts are often unable or unwilling to keep them off the road. We found cases where drivers racked up numerous tickets while driving on a suspended license and faced little more than fines before eventually causing a fatal crash, even though authorities could have sent them to jail.

Taking away someone’s driving privilege is no small decision. It can consign a family to poverty, affecting job prospects, child care and medical decisions.

Still, the stakes couldn’t be higher. More than 20,000 people died on the roads of California from 2019 to early 2024.

Kowana Strong thinks part of the problem is that lawmakers and regulators are too quick to treat fatal crashes as an unfortunate fact of life, as opposed to something they can address.

Her son Melvin Strong III — who went by his middle name, Kwaun — was finishing college and planning to start a master’s program in kinesiology when he was killed by Dimov, the driver with six prior DUI convictions. Kwaun was a bright and innocent young man, she said, just starting his life.

“It’s just another accident as far as they’re concerned,” Kowana Strong said.

Holes in the DMV’s point system

Young people think they’re invincible. It’s the old who know how unfair life is, Jerrod Tejeda said.

His daughter Cassi Tejeda was just 22. She was months from graduating from Chico State with a bachelor’s degree in history and a plan to be a teacher. Outgoing and athletic, she wanted to travel, see the world and make her own life.

She had a girlfriend who was visiting. Courtney Kendall was 24 and a student at Louisiana State University.

On a Sunday afternoon in January 2022, a Volvo SUV topping speeds of 75 mph ran a red light and smashed into their Jeep, court records show. The collision killed them both.

“The most difficult part besides the incident is every day that goes by you’re always wondering what if. What would they be doing today?” Jerrod Tejeda said. “Would they be married? Would they have developed into the career that they chose? Where would she be living?”

Tanya Kendall lamented not being there to protect her daughter, hold her hand or say goodbye.

“Instead, I was left with the unbearable task of choosing what outfit she would be buried in. Buried, Your Honor. Not the gown she would wear to her graduation from LSU — the one she will never attend,” the mother wrote in a letter to a Butte County judge, adding that she and her husband stood in their daughter’s place, accepting her diploma.

Such pain was preventable.

The driver of the Volvo, Matthew Moen, had a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit, according to court filings. And it wasn’t his first time drinking and driving. Moen was caught driving drunk in Oregon in 2016. He never completed the requirements of a diversion program and had an outstanding warrant at the time of the fatal crash, the Butte County district attorney’s office said. In January 2020, he was convicted of DUI in Nevada County for driving with a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit, given a couple weeks in jail and put on probation for three years.

His license was valid at the time of the fatal 2022 crash, records show.

Across the country, states grapple with how to effectively spot and punish drivers who could be a danger on the road. Often they rely on a basic point system, with drivers accruing points for various types of traffic violations and thresholds for when the state will take away a motorist’s driving privileges. But like many, California has such high limits that drivers with a pattern of reckless behavior can avoid punishment.

The state suspends a driver’s license for accumulating four points in a year, six points in two years or eight points in three years. What does it take to get that many points? Using a cellphone while driving is zero points. A speeding ticket is a point. Vehicular manslaughter is two points.

Between March 2017 and March 2022, Trevor Cook received two citations for running red lights, got two speeding tickets and was deemed responsible for two collisions, including one in which someone was injured, court records show. (A third red-light ticket was dismissed.) At-fault collisions add a point to a driver’s license, according to the DMV. But the incidents were spaced out enough that none resulted in a suspension.

So Cook had a valid license on April 14, 2022, just a month after his last speeding ticket, when he blew through a Yolo County stop sign at more than 100 mph.

At that exact moment, Prajal Bista passed through the intersection, on his way to work after dinner and a movie with his wife, according to details of the crash that prosecutors included in court filings. Bista was driving the speed limit and on track to make it to work 30 minutes early.

The force of the collision nearly split Bista’s Honda Civic in half. Investigators determined Bista had been wearing his seat belt, but the crash tore it apart. They found his body 75 feet from the intersection.

On March 28, 2024, Cook pleaded no contest to felony vehicular manslaughter.

Just a month later, on April 30, the DMV issued Cook his current driver’s license, agency records show. Less than two weeks after that, he got a ticket for disobeying a traffic signal.

Melinda Aiello, chief deputy district attorney in Yolo County, said her office didn’t know anything about the new license or the red-light ticket until contacted by CalMatters. What’s more, the manslaughter conviction — like hundreds of others we found — isn’t listed on Cook’s driving record.

Cook’s license was still listed as valid in California DMV records as of early 2025. But for now, he’s off the roadways: Last summer, Cook started serving time in state prison.

“It’s stunning to me that eight months later his license is still showing as valid and the conviction for killing someone while driving is not reflected in his driving record,” Aiello said. “You killed somebody. I’d think there might be some license implications.”

Orrock, the DMV spokesperson, said he couldn’t speak directly to why so many convictions are missing. But, he said, “we acknowledge that the process and coordination between the judicial system and the DMV must continually evolve to address any gaps that have been identified. And we’re looking into that.”

Kill someone, get your license back

There are laws requiring the DMV to suspend a driver’s license for various convictions. A first DUI conviction, for example, is a 6-to-10-month suspension. Felony vehicular manslaughter is a three-year loss of driving privileges. The agency isn’t necessarily required to give a license back if its driver safety branch deems a motorist too dangerous to drive, agency officials said.

But CalMatters found the agency regularly gives drivers their licenses back as soon as the legally required period ends. And once crashes, tickets and suspensions fall off a driver’s record after a few years, it’s often as if the motorist’s record is wiped clean. So even if the driver gets in trouble again, the agency often treats any future crashes and traffic violations as isolated incidents, not as part of a longer pattern of reckless driving.

Perhaps that’s why Joshua Daugherty is licensed to drive in California.

In July 2020, Daugherty drifted onto the highway shoulder while driving near Mammoth Lakes, overcorrected to the left and lost control, court filings show. His Toyota Tacoma cut across the lane into oncoming traffic, where an SUV broadsided it. Daugherty’s girlfriend, 25-year-old Krystal Kazmark, died. Police noted that Daugherty’s eyes were red and watery and his speech was slurred when they arrived. He told officers that he’d smoked “a couple of bowls” of marijuana earlier in the day, according to records filed in court.

Kazmark’s mother was devastated. Like other victim relatives we spoke to for this story, Mary Kazmark tried as best she could to summarize a life into a few words — an impossible task. Her daughter liked to sing, travel, cook, draw, snow-ski, water-ski, wakeboard, hike, read, entertain friends and plan parties. She was a responsible kid, her mother said, always the designated driver with her friends. She oversaw guest reservations at one of the Mammoth Lakes lodges.

Mary Kazmark said she tracked down Daugherty on the phone a few days after the crash.

“He just said, ‘I can’t believe this happened again.’ And I was like, ‘What do you mean?’”

She eventually learned it wasn’t the first time Daugherty’s driving had killed.

In August 2009, in a strikingly similar incident, Daugherty was speeding along a Riverside County highway when his Ford Expedition drifted onto the shoulder. Witnesses told police he veered back to the left, lost control, hit a dirt embankment and went airborne, the SUV flipping onto its roof. A 16-year-old girl riding in the back died. Daugherty was convicted of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. He was sentenced to 180 days in custody and three years’ probation, according to a summary of the case filed in court.

Because of the earlier manslaughter conviction, police recommended he be charged with murder for the death of Krystal Kazmark. But the Mono County district attorney’s office charged him with a mere misdemeanor.

Felony charges typically  require a prosecutor to prove “gross negligence.” A prosecutor in another county described the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor this way: A felony is one in which you tell the average person the facts and they say, “Wow, that’s really dangerous.” A misdemeanor is one which they say, “That’s dumb but I’ve probably done it.”

The Mono County district attorney’s office refused to comment on the case, because the prosecutor and the elected DA at the time have both since retired. The office did provide a prepared statement explaining the charging decision. “It was determined that there was not a substantial likelihood of conviction at trial,” it said.

Daugherty pleaded guilty and was convicted in January 2023. He was sentenced to a year in jail. The DMV suspended his driving privileges after the fatal 2020 crash, a DMV report shows. But losing his license wasn’t enough to keep Daugherty off the road, records show.

Two months after his conviction for killing Kazmark, before he reported to jail, police caught him driving on a suspended license.

Still, the DMV reissued Daugherty a license in July 2024.

To recap: That’s two convictions for two dead young women, plus a conviction for driving on a suspended license, and the California DMV says Daugherty can still share the road with you.

“It’s so sad. You make a mistake and then you don’t learn from it and then you cause another person to lose their life,” Mary Kazmark said. “It’s unbelievable that he can continue to drive.”

Orrock said the DMV couldn’t comment on individual drivers.

When law enforcement reports a fatal crash, the agency’s driver safety branch flags all drivers who might be at fault. It then looks into the collision and decides whether the agency should suspend those motorists’ driving privileges. If the driver contests the action, there’s a hearing that could include witness testimony. Suspensions are open-ended. Drivers need to ask for their license back, and agency personnel decide whether the suspension should end or continue. These discretionary suspensions typically last for about a year.

And while officials said the DMV can continue a suspension if they think a driver poses a danger, Orrock said they need to give drivers an opportunity to get their license back. He said there’s no process in the state “to permanently revoke a license.”

Flagging for partners that we made one copy tweak today (Sunday). You’ll all get an email as well.

Get your license back, get in trouble again

Roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash since 2019 received a ticket, got in another collision or did both after the date they allegedly killed someone on the road. (The reports don’t show whether the drivers were found at fault, only that they were involved in an accident.) That’s about 15% of the drivers for whom we could get DMV reports.

Drivers like William Beasley.

From 2011 to 2016, Beasley collected five speeding tickets and a citation for running a red light in Sacramento County, court records show. Then around 9 a.m. on a sunny Tuesday in October 2019, he killed a man.

William and Deborah Hester were crossing the street to go to a dentist appointment at a veterans facility when Beasley’s silver pickup sped toward them. They thought they would make it across. But the truck didn’t stop. At the last minute, William Hester shoved his wife out of the way. She heard the truck smash into her husband’s body and screamed, according to court records.

Beasley still didn’t stop. He fled the area and tried to hide his truck. Investigators used nearby cameras and license plate readers to track him down days later. Beasley admitted to being in a collision.

He later pleaded no contest in Sacramento to hit-and-run and misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. A probation report in the case revealed Beasley was nearly blind in his left eye.

“Mr. Hester is with me every moment of my life,” Beasley said in an interview. “I took away a father, a grandfather, a husband, and they consider me a murderer. That’s not who I am.”

“My accident with Mr. Hester was just that, an accident. Nothing more,” he said, adding that he worked as a courier for years and sometimes got speeding tickets because he was rushing.

In May 2020, the DMV took away his driving privileges.

In November 2022, Beasley got his license back — “because I could and I needed to,” he said, adding that people deserve second chances, particularly for accidents.

Almost immediately — less than three weeks after getting his license — he was in another collision, his DMV report shows. In early 2024, he got in yet another. His license was suspended when his car insurance was canceled, records show.

“It makes no sense to me that they would give him a license and give him the opportunity to hurt someone else,” said Loriann Hester Page, William Hester’s daughter.

Her father’s death broke the family, she said. He drove a tank in the Army, played guitar in a band, liked to ride horses.

“My dad was such a wonderful, kind man,” she said. “He would always walk in a room and wanted to make everyone smile.”

Beasley said he doesn’t plan to drive again.

“I am 75 years old,” he said. “I am blind in one eye. I have had a situation where a man was killed, he lost his life. I am not going to repeat that situation at all.”

Still on the road, license never suspended

The DMV does have the ability to act quickly. In some cases, it suspended a driver’s license shortly after a fatal crash. However, we found numerous cases in which the DMV did nothing for months or years, often not until a criminal conviction.

In July 2021, truck driver Baljit Singh drove his semi on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic, killing a motorcyclist in Kern County, court records show. There are no suspensions listed on his DMV record during that time, even though the agency has the discretion to suspend someone’s license without a conviction.

Less than a year later, as his case wound its way through the slow-moving court system, Singh plowed his semi into the back of a car in Fresno County, killing a woman, records show. He ultimately pleaded no contest to felony vehicular manslaughter in Kern County. He pleaded no contest to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in Fresno for the second fatal crash. The DMV finally took away his driving privileges in February of last year.

Prosecutors say Jadon Mendez was speeding in December 2021 in Santa Clara County when he lost control and caused a crash that killed a mother of three young children. A few weeks later he got a speeding ticket. And yet, the DMV issued him his current driver’s license on Jan. 27, 2022 — 49 days after the fatal crash.

There were no suspensions listed on his DMV record as of early this year, even though Mendez was charged with manslaughter in May 2022. The judge in his case ordered him not to drive, as a condition of his release. But such court orders don’t necessarily show up on a driver’s DMV record.

That might be why he didn’t get in more trouble in December 2022 when he got a speeding ticket in Alameda County. Prosecutors didn’t know about that ticket until CalMatters asked about it, said Angela Bernhard, assistant DA in the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office.

Mendez’s manslaughter case is still open, and his license is still listed as valid.

When asked about the Mendez case and others, Orrock acknowledged that while there’s a DMV process for deciding when to revoke or suspend a license, “sometimes the process takes a while to happen.”

When the DMV doesn’t act at all

In many cases, the DMV doesn’t take action even after a conviction.

In May 2022, a semi driver named Ramon Pacheco made a U-turn in front of an oncoming motorcycle, killing 29-year-old Dominic Lopez-Toney, who was finishing his rotations to be a doctor.

Court records show Pacheco had gotten in trouble behind the wheel before. He had been arrested for DUI in 2009, caused a collision in 2013 and got a ticket in 2016 for making an unsafe turn. It wasn’t enough to keep him off the road.

Neither was killing a man.

Months after San Joaquin prosecutors charged Pacheco with vehicular manslaughter, he got into another collision for which he was also deemed most at fault.

As the case dragged on, Lopez-Toney’s large but tight-knit family wrote dozens of letters to the court, pleading for justice. Dorothy Toney wrote that, more than a year since her grandson’s death, she was still haunted by images of his “mangled and broken body” and the gruesome details in the police report. “Somedays,” she wrote, “I wish I had been there to gently hold his hands” and “tell him how much I loved him.”

The letters are full of shock and outrage that the driver had faced so few consequences. “Allowing this truck driver to continue driving and engaging in civilian activities with only a mere consequence of probation is appalling,” wrote Lynelle Sigona, the victim’s aunt.

Pacheco ultimately pleaded no contest to misdemeanor manslaughter and received probation. His DMV record as of Feb. 11 indicates his driving privileges were never suspended; his commercial driver’s license is valid.

Pacheco’s defense attorney, Gil Somera, said his client isn’t a reckless driver. His prior incidents are relatively minimal, he said, given the fact that “truck drivers drive thousands and thousands of miles a year.” Pacheco needed to turn around and didn’t think there was another place he could do so, since he was approaching a residential area, Somera added.

Pacheco wasn’t being “inattentive or reckless,” Somera said. “And it’s unfortunate and sad and tragic this young man died because of this decision he made to make a U-turn.”

In the wake of the tragedy, Lopez-Toney’s mother has become an advocate for truck safety.

“Road safety and truck safety is not a priority right now with our legislators, with our government,” Nora Lopez said. “Changing our mindset, our attitudes, our culture on the roads is not impossible.”

In an interview at her Castro Valley home, she talked about her only child. He was smart and caring, liked snowboarding and animals, loved food. On vacations they would take cooking classes together, Lopez said. He studied molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley and was almost done with medical school.

She still has the dry-erase whiteboards in his old room. One is filled with his small and neat study notes; another has what appears to be a to-do list. There’s a note that says “Surgery: 600.” Lopez said that’s when he was due to start his surgical rotation in a San Joaquin hospital, just a couple of days after he died.

She said he just wanted to help people and serve the Native American community as a doctor, a future that a driver snatched away.

“It’s because of a man’s recklessness and carelessness — no regard for humanity,” she said.

While felony manslaughter is an automatic three-year loss of driving privileges, a misdemeanor typically carries no such penalty. It’s discretionary — it’s up to the DMV to decide whether to do anything. And the man who killed Lopez-Toney is far from alone in facing no apparent punishment from the DMV.

We found nearly 200 drivers with a valid license whose DMV record shows a conviction for misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter but for whom there is no suspension listed.

When shown a copy of Pacheco’s current driving report, Lopez sat in silence for several seconds.

“Does this make sense to you? It makes no sense to me,” she said. “With his record, how does he still have a license?”

‘Are we going to put that loaded gun back in their hands?’

Research on dangerous drivers appears to be thin and largely outdated.

Liza Lutzker, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, said much of the focus in the traffic safety world is on creating better design and infrastructure, so people who make honest mistakes don’t end up killing someone.

“I think that the issues of these reckless drivers are a separate and complex problem,” Lutzker said. “The system we have clearly is not working. And people are paying with their lives for it.”

Jeffrey Michael, who researches roadway safety issues at Johns Hopkins University and spent three decades working at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said he understands officials might be hesitant to impose harsher penalties more broadly, “for fear of the unintended consequences.”

“We live in a society where driving is really essential,” he said. But he said the findings show the agency needs more scrutiny and analysis of who is on the roads.

“These are not unresolvable problems,” he said.

Leah Shahum, executive director of the Vision Zero Network, a nonprofit promoting safe streets, said sometimes officials prioritize preserving people’s ability to drive rather than ensuring safety.

“We don’t all have the right to drive,” Shahum said. “We have the responsibility to drive safely and ensure we don’t hurt others.” She added that many people need to drive in this car-centric state. “That does not mean there can be a license to kill.”

“If we know somebody has a history of dangerous behavior,” she said, “are we going to put that loaded gun back in their hands?”

The gun metaphor was common in the thousands of vehicular manslaughter cases we looked at across California. One prosecutor described dangerous behavior behind the wheel as akin to firing a gun into a crowd.

In letters to the court, surviving relatives and friends described the hole left behind, writing about an empty seat at a high school graduation, a photo cutout taken without fail to home baseball games.

It’s a void one young man tried to explain to authorities — the sudden, violent, blink-of-an-eye moment where life forever changes. For him, it was at 6:45 p.m. on Feb. 27, 2020, on Lone Tree Way in the Bay Area city of Antioch.

Two brothers, ages 11 and 15, were going to meet their dad at a Burger King. They crossed to the median and then waited for a break in the traffic before continuing to the other side. The older one made it across, according to court documents. His younger brother stepped into the street just as a driver gunned his car to 75 miles an hour — 30 over the speed limit.

The older boy watched as his younger brother “just disappeared.”

This is the first piece in a series about how California lets dangerous drivers stay on the road. Sign up for CalMatters’ License to Kill newsletter to be notified when the next story comes out, and to get more behind-the-scenes information from our reporting.

The post License to Kill appeared first on Valley Voice.

What do you do after serving in the California Assembly for 10 years? In Devon Mathis’ case, it’s open a public relations agency.

Mathis’ new business, Azimuth PR, leads a network of public relations professionals with him at the helm.

“We are a dedicated team of public relations professionals driven by a shared commitment to help organizations achieve meaningful change,” the firm’s website states.

His goal was to open a business that helps people navigate government regulations, build coalitions, and strategize.

“Taking everything I learned over the last ten years of serving the Valley lead me to this business. It’s been my long term plan,” he said. “This way I can continue to serve and help the Valley.”

The company focuses on elections, fundraising, crisis management, natural resources, agriculture, and public health among other areas.

According to their website Azimuth PR is “Your Guide to Strategic Action in Public and Government Relations. Helping you know where your targets are, where you truly are, and strategically mapping your pathway to success.”

One of his team members is his wife Mistie Mathis, whose specialty is social media and global marketing. Mathis says they make a great partnership.

“She knows more than the top two percent in the country concerning global marketing,” he said. “She’s got a niche.”

Mathis’ ten years of public service started in 2014 when he was elected to California’s 26th Assembly District in a surprise victory over a well funded and seasoned politician, Woodlake Mayor Rudy Mendoza.

With his slogan “People over Politics,” Mathis went on to serve five terms — but in 2024 he was ready to hand over the torch to new blood.

When asked why he didn’t run for office one last time before terming out Mathis said he wanted to be home with his family. His oldest son just graduated high school, the next oldest entered his sophomore year, and the youngest just entered the eighth grade.

He also shares custody of his twins from a previous marriage.

“What do two more years do for my family?  It’s not like there is a retirement plan,” he said.

Mathis said that an excellent candidate was in the wings, ready to step forward to run for what is now the 33rd Assembly District — he endorsed Tularean Alexandra Macedo immediately after declaring he would not seek another term.

Macedo got the most votes in the March primary and beat fellow Tularean Xavier Avila, a member of the Tulare Local Healthcare District board and the Tulare Cemetery District board, in the November General Election.

Once Macedo was sworn into office for the 33rd Assembly District, Mathis said he officially opened his business.

Though public relations is different from lobbying, Mathis still cleared the details of his business with the Assembly Ethics Committee, since he’s not able to lobby legislators for a year after leaving the assembly.

Mathis said he didn’t want to be stuck in Sacramento as a lobbyist.

“I want to help people navigate the system, not lobby,” he said.

His firm is based in Porterville, Mathis’ family home town on both sides. His dad’s side came west along the Oregon Trail and his mother’s side arrived during the Dust Bowl.

“Our family goes back in Porterville for generations,” he said.

While Porterville is a relatively small town with few local public relations needs, Mathis said that location mattered little in the modern age.

“We live in a globalized economy. People don’t need to fly across the country for a meeting when we have a digital boardroom,” he said.

Mathis said the firm has a network of people across the country with different specialties that Mathis says he leans on for their expertise — though he says they mostly lean on him.

“I was in the mix for every major legislation that came down: Cap and Trade, agriculture, water, safety, health care access, etc,” he said. “I am blessed to be able to use my ten years experience and now help the people living in the valley and people all over the country.”

During his tenure Mathis was on a multitude of committees including Appropriations, Utilities & Energy, Natural Resources, Human Services, Governmental Organization, and Transportation, Aerospace, Biodiversity, and Serving Students with Disabilities, and he was a founding member of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs.

He was also the Chief Operations Officer of the California Assembly Republican Caucus and the Caucus Whip, leading strategy for legislative, media, internal affairs, and member-mentoring with all his contacts — culminating in a wide range to offer his clients and the other team members.

Mathis said his clients come from all over the country and even Canada, United States’ biggest trading partner.

So what’s up with the business name?

“I’m a military guy,” said Mathis. “When you are trying to get your bearing you use the azimuth line to triangulate your position.”

“I am saying people can find their way with the help of my company.”

The post Former Assemblymember Devon Mathis opens a new chapter: public relations appeared first on Valley Voice.

“Governor Newsom’s visit to the Central Valley today is pure political theater. Declaring ‘progress’ after $128 billion in cost overruns and a train to nowhere insults Valley residents, whose farmland has been seized, tax dollars wasted, and trust shattered,” said Stan Ellis. “The Governor admitted in 2019 that there is no clear path to completing this project, yet billions more have been squandered while real local needs are ignored. The Central Valley needs leadership that prioritizes our people, farms, and future—not empty promises. That’s why I’m running for the Assembly.”

Background

The CAHSR project was approved by voters in 2008 under Proposition 1A, which promised a high-speed rail system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours by 2020. Voters were assured an efficient, affordable transportation alternative that would create jobs and benefit the environment. However, the project has been plagued by mismanagement, skyrocketing costs, and repeated delays. The original cost estimate of $33 billion has ballooned to over $128 billion, with only partial construction completed in the Central Valley—far short of the promised statewide network.

In addition to financial concerns, the project has drawn criticism for its environmental and agricultural impacts. Thousands of acres of prime farmland in the Central Valley have been seized, threatening the livelihoods of local farmers and disrupting the state’s most vital agricultural region.

In 2019, Governor Newsom himself acknowledged significant flaws in the project, stating during his State of the State address: “Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A.” Despite this candid admission, his administration has continued to pursue the project, leading to ongoing controversies surrounding its financial and practical feasibility.

Background on Stan Ellis

Stan Ellis is a lifelong Central Valley resident, farmer, business owner, and advocate for fiscal responsibility. Running for Assembly District 32, Ellis has committed to prioritizing infrastructure projects that directly benefit Valley residents, protecting farmland, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. Ellis is running to bring common-sense leadership to Sacramento and to end wasteful spending on projects like the California High-Speed Rail.

The post Stan Ellis, Assembly District 32 candidate, slams Newsom visit to Central Valley appeared first on Valley Voice.

Two big battles are unfolding right now in the ongoing Central Valley Water Wars.

Last Thursday, a Kings County judge again ruled in favor of the Kings County Farm Bureau in its lawsuit against the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The judge extended an injunction issued in July that halted costly and difficult-to-implement probationary demands issued against the region’s water users. The injunction is in effect until the matter goes to trial.

The judge’s decision came days before the SWRCB struck again on Tuesday. This time the board – following a 10-hour-long meeting in the state capital – placed the Tule Subbasin GSAs on probation as well. The vote to intervene in the Tule Subbasin imposes nearly identical requirements as those now under suspension in Kings County.

Conditions of probation in the Tule Subbasin begin January 1.

Lawsuit a ‘Huge Win’ for Kings County Water Users

In its ongoing lawsuit, the Kings County Farm Bureau is challenging the fairness of the state’s actions against water users. Their attorneys claim fees imposed on water users are arbitrary, punitive and excessive, and they fall outside the response allowed by the State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

In July, Judge Katherine Ciuffini concurred in principle with the bureau’s claims, issuing a temporary order allowing water users to ignore the state’s demands. That order has now been extended until the matter has concluded in court.

Kings County Farm Bureau executive director Dusty Ference called the judge’s order a “huge win for Kings County growers” in an email.

“The preliminary injunction pauses everything probation in the Tulare Lake Subbasin,” he said in a follow-up interview. “It’s almost like the probation doesn’t exist for us. I say that, but it could come back.”

If the matter is decided in the state’s favor, the injunction would be lifted and the fees and reporting requirements would return. But the bureau appears to have a good case. It challenges whether the state is allowed to respond as vigorously as it has in the Tulare Lake Subbasin. So far, it appears the state may have exceeded its legal mandate, but only a trial – or its settlement – can decide the issue.

The SWRCB, the bureau’s suit contends, went beyond the scope of SGMA when it imposed usage-based pumping fees and annual reporting requirements. The bureau argues the state was too swift to impose itself on GSAs in the Tulare Lake Groundwater Subbasin. The state, in response, claims the failure to control water usage required a fast and clear response to halt overpumping of a key and very limited resource.

Despite Ruling, Conservation Work Must Go On

Ciuffini’s decision last week certainly bodes well for the plaintiffs in the suit in the longer term, But it doesn’t mean water users in the Tulare Lake Pumping Subbasin are free of SGMA and its limits on pumping.

In fact, the work is starting all over again.

“We’re back to complying with the State Groundwater Management Act, meaning the local GSAs need to get their plans submitted and hopefully approved, so they’re in compliance with the law,” Ference said.

Everyone involved on both sides of this issue are aware of the stakes involved.

“Groundwater in California is the most important resource we have to manage,” Ference said.

And that is why the SWRCB is so eager to bring GSAs in the Tulare Subbasin into line with the requirements of SGMA. Meanwhile, no one is suggesting lack of ample water for all purposes for all users does not constitute a full-blown crisis for the Central San Joaquin Valley and much of the rest of the state.

But Ference and his backers, while they agree water is precious and must be conserved, also have the future welfare of the people of Kings County to consider. That requires good water management and at the same time allowing people to make their living.

“We have never argued that changes don’t need to take place,” Ference said. “We’ve only argued it needs to be done in a sustainable way without detrimental harm to our community.”

Compromise or Die Trying

To even the most stubborn of climate-change deniers, it’s obvious water users in the Valley are draining a difficult-to-replace resource. The evidence is clear when considering the Friant-Kern Canal. This major aqueduct running much of the length of California has sunk so severely due to groundwater over-pumping that a miles-long segment in southern Tulare County had to be replaced.

Yet it’s still sinking.

At the same time, without enough water, the Valley’s people will also suffer severely. Not just from thirst. Between fulfilling the water needs of the community and protecting the environment and sustaining the Valley’s absolutely vital ag industries, there has to be a balance.

What should a water protection scheme that meets all those requirements look like? No one really knows.

“That’s such a complex question,” said Ference. “It has to be an available supply of surface water to create food and protect jobs, while providing for communities. I’m not saying anything new.”

Sketching such a plan out will require many experienced voices. The water question is simply that distended and complicated.

“It requires input from engineers and the community,” Ference said. “It’s a question I could spend three days answering.”

But he doesn’t have the time. The state is pushing to get past objections to its probationary restrictions. There’s no timeline for when the suit will conclude. The clock is ticking down to an uncertain but inevitable deadline.

And there’s one hell of a lot on the line. This is a genuine life-or-death issue for the hundreds of thousands of people living in the Tulare Lake Pumping Subbasin. Their livelihood is literally on the line.

“Ag is directly responsible for 25 percent of jobs. We’re the main provider of tax revenue,” the farm bureau chief said. “We will be a ghost town in Kings County if we don’t manage the Groundwater Sustainability Act correctly.”

Tule Subbasin on State Probation Starting in 2025

And the problem of finding the right approach has just grown enormously.

Water users in the Tule Subbasin now find themselves facing essentially identical restrictions and demands from the state for using water. At a hearing held Tuesday in Sacramento, the SWRCB placed Tule Subbasin on probation. Board members unanimously approved.

This nearly doubles the area where water users are on probation. The Tulare Lake Subbasin covers 524,000 acres (about 820 square miles) and is home to more than 150,000 people. The decision Tuesday brings another 469,000 acres (around 730 square miles) and another 160,000 to 180,000 people in Tulare and Kings counties under state control.

However, there is one major difference. The probation may not be all-inclusive. The resolution passed by the SWRCB acknowledges a request by the Lower Tule River Irrigation District and Pixley Irrigation District to be excluded from the probationary designation, reporting and fees. The SWRCB staff will review the requests and report back to the board in mid-December. They’re trying to grant or deny those requests before the January 1 start date.

But they believe there’s a good chance they won’t be done on time. So if the exclusion is granted after the deadline, it would be retroactive. Reimbursing water users in the two irrigation districts was discussed by SWRCB members, but it is not clear if a provision was included in the final probationary order.

Division of Opinion on Tule Subbasin Probation

Most members of the public who addressed the SWRCB prior to its placing the Tule Subbasin on probation opposed it. But not all did.

“We are in support of you all making the decision to move the Tule subbasin into probation,” Angela Islas, a representative of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, told board members.

It was a common theme: a desire for decisive action to address a pressing issue. Ruth Martinez, a resident of Ducor, restated the importance of groundwater management for her town.

“It is very important to me that my public water system continues to have access to water, and it is very important that the groundwater is managed in a sustainable way,” she said in a statement read to the board.

Maria Marro, an advocate with the Community Water Center, said the state provides a buffer between residential water users and agricultural and industrial interests. She highlighted the criticality of the matter.

“These families need for the state to hold the GSA’s accountable to protect their only source of water,” Marro said. “For these reasons, I strongly urge the board to vote yes on probation to protect groundwater in the Tule Basin.”

Tule Basin Ag Interests Eager to Avoid Probation Restrictions

The majority of those who addressed the board wanted to avoid probation. And their reasoning is sound. They say they need more time to comply. And they’re worried the state’s fees could be the end for some farmers.

Valerie Jackson, representing the Corcoran-based Tri County Water Authority, told the SWRCB the local leaders could work the problems out among themselves.

“Tri County respectfully requests that the State Board decline to deem the subbasin probationary at this time,” she said. “A deferral of a probationary designation will permit Tri County to continue to work through remaining technical issues and collaborate with other GSAs.”

Those living in the Tule Subbasin are also worried state fees could overburden growers to the point of failure. Among them was grower Seth Merritt.

“We’re not asking for a handout. We’re just asking to break even,” Merritt said. “For a lot of us farmers out there, our backs are against the wall. And when you start putting these extra costs on us, some of us aren’t going to make it.”

Fourth-generation farmer Vincent Sola worried state involvement in the Tule Subbasin could extend the problems there well into the uncertain future.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done to implement and tweak these plans as we go forward. I ask that you not place the Tule subbasin on probation,” he said. “I don’t want to see a Tulare Subbasin matter in the Tule Subbasin, or nothing will get resolved for a long time.”

Water Conservation at a Make-or-Break Point

These two ongoing battles in the Central Valley Water Wars mark a distinct change in the state’s relationship with the multitude of small, local agencies that control the state’s water. The fight is turning nasty. There are those – some in positions of authority – who believe we’ve reached a point where we must cooperate or lose everything.

“I think we’re at that fork in the road where the probation … will force us to come together or completely fracture this basin,” said Porterville assistant city manager Michael Knight.

Despite that warning and the potential cost for residents of the Tule Subbasin, the SWRCB unanimously approved probation. E. Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the SWRCB, said he and his fellow board members had greater issues with which to contend.

“I think we’re all struggling with this,” he said. “We have a desire to work with local agencies. We also have a responsibility to ensure that people have water. I know that this is not an easy conversation … but … given the inadequacy of even the revised GSPs that we’re seeing I feel that we need to move ourselves down along this process.”

While acknowledging the far-reaching fallout of probation for the Tule Subbasin, Esquivel said too much is at risk not to act. And to act swiftly.

“I know amongst many that it (probation) is a nuclear option, that it harms the community’s interests,” he said. “But at the same time, given the urgency, given the criticality of the groundwater resources to both growers and communities that are dependent on it for drinking water, I sense an urgency here amongst us all to act.”

SWRCB vice chair Dorene D’Adamo also said the board felt compelled to act. California is in a dangerous, acute state regarding its water.

“This is not an easy decision, but It just strikes me that we really are at a crisis in terms of our groundwater resources in this state, and the time to act is now,” she said.

The post Tulare Lake GSAs win in court as Tule Subbasin GSAs join them on probation appeared first on Valley Voice.

Two weeks later, the Post Fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties swept across 15,500 acres, injuring one person, destroying a structure and forcing about 1,200 people near Gorman to flee their homes as the fire burned a pathway following Interstate 5. The Sites Fire in Colusa County burned another 19,000 acres starting on the same day, June 15. By the end of spring on June 20, wildfires had burned nearly 90,000 total acres in California. The Thompson fire in Oroville has just slowed down enough today so the evacuees can start returning home.

They’re just getting started.

Wildfire Numbers Jump as Summer Starts

Last week, Tropical Storm Alberto inundated parts of Louisiana and Texas and finally tailed off north into the Pacific Ocean. From there, it brought breezy conditions to the Golden State.

Those mild winds arrived just in time to help trigger a red flag warning for wildfires from the National Weather Service. Combined with a heatwave bringing at least a week of triple-digit temperatures to the Central Valley and drier-than-usual air with humidity readings dipping into the single digits, the state is primed for a disaster.

The warning is still in effect as of this writing. It runs through noon on Friday. The weather shows very little sign of changing, so expect the red flag to continue flying. It’s already been up for 34 days, starting on June 16.

In 2024 so far – according to an update on July 2 – 2,872 wildfires have burned close to 134,000 acres of wilderness. About a third of that acreage went up in smoke in the last 14 days. In just the two weeks since summer’s official start, 44,000 acres have been burned by wildfire.

Right now, thousands of residents of Oroville are under evacuation orders as the Thompson Fire burns at the edge of that Northern California city. The fire has spread to almost 4,000 acres and is only 29% contained. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

There’s No Fire Season Anymore in Tulare County

When asked if this was an unusually early start to the wildfire season, Savannah Birchfield, a fire prevention specialist for Cal Fire’s Visalia fire station denied it.

“We don’t really have a fire season anymore,” she said. “We have a fire year. I hope it isn’t busy.”

When Tropical Storm Alberto blew itself out in the Pacific, it did more than help worsen fire conditions into red flag warning conditions. It also sent a dry lightning storm into the Central Valley and on into the Sierra Nevada. More than 1,000 lightning strikes fell. Many of the fires they started are still active.

“The one I’ve been hearing the most about is the Power Incident,” Birchfield said. “That one was in Kernville. It’s out already, they’re doing mop-up on it.”

“Mopping up” means completely containing the edges of the burned area. Luckily the fire was small, under 200 acres. It was extinguished quickly. Cal Fire aims to contain fires at 10 acres or less.

“We try to keep them very small,” Birchfield said.

Fresno County Hard Hit by June Lightning Storm

Keeping the fires small hasn’t been possible in unlucky Fresno County, where the majority of the lightning strikes hit. The storm sparked several fires and dropped no rain to slow them down. They have since merged into a single conflagration.

“The Fresno June Lightning Complex, it’s multiple fires east of the Sanger area. It was four or five fires that burned into each other,” Birchfield said. “Three of them are contained. The final fire, which is the Bolt Fire, is 93% contained.”

Before it was brought mostly under control, the wildfire took down a neighborhood of 11,000 acres of grassland, according to data updated late on the morning of July 3. The fire began on June 24 and has been burning for 11 days so far. At this point, it’s no longer gaining ground.

“When we say containment, that basically means getting a perimeter around the fire and keeping it from spreading,” Birchfield said. “My understanding is the progression is stopped. I would say it’s in the mop-up stage.”

Cal Fire in Tulare County has sent Incident Management Team 5 to aid the firefighting efforts there. It is not involved in fighting Fresno County’s other major ongoing fire, the Basin Fire. Because this fire is on federal land, battling it is out of Cal Fire’s hands.

“This is near Balch Camp, east of Pine Flat Lake. It’s northeast of where the June Lightning Complex is,” Birchfield said on July 3. “We have this listed as 13,938 acres. This is a Sierra National Forest incident.”

As of July 4, the Basin Fire had grown only slightly, topping 14,000 acres. It is only 46% contained. The fire has burned for nine days, beginning on June 26.

Dangerous Fire Conditions Likely to Continue Through the Summer

Daniel Swain – an expert at UCLA on climate change and its effects on wildfires, droughts, storms and flooding – predicts the conditions that make large, frequent wildfires likely here will continue for the foreseeable future.

“In fact, given a confluence of factors, I would expect very high fire risk to persist throughout this heatwave and beyond for a few different reasons,” he wrote recently on WeatherWest.com.

The fuel that feeds wildfires in lower elevations, those below 5,000 feet, is particularly dry and well cured by the unrelenting sun this year. Some parts of Northern California, Swain reports, the flammability rating of fine, herbaceous fuel is approaching an all-time high. At the same time in some areas of the state, moisture levels of that fuel will reach seasonal lows not seen in decades.

And there’s a whole lot of it. Both 2022 and 2023 had wet and mild growing seasons to start the year. That resulted in a larger-than-normal fuel load.

Then there’s the Fourth of July fireworks displays.

“This will be particularly consequential since this year these potential firework ignitions will co-occur with a major heatwave and pre-existing high fire risk conditions – which is certainly not the case every year,” Swain wrote. “Thus, the stage is set for some potentially problematic new wildfires in California and much of the West this week.”

And perhaps well beyond.

Fire Insurance Impossible to Find for High-Risk Areas

As the fire danger in California continues to increase, so too do the premiums property owners are forced to pay. Insurance policies are still available to most homeowners that cover damage from wildfires, house fires, dry lightning strikes and similar occurrences.

It’s a different story for those whose homes are in high-risk areas of the state. For them, a state program – the FAIR Plan – that forces insurers to provide them coverage. But it isn’t cheap. A story by CalMatters from January tells the story of one homeowner who’s had to rely on FAIR since 2017. Since then, his premiums have nearly tripled, going from $399 to $967. He’s considering leaving the state.

The FAIR Plan was established in 1968, and is funded by a pool of insurers licensed to do business in California. New regulations established in April of 2023 were intended to lower rates based on the state’s so-called Safer from Wildfire framework. It grants discounts to homeowners who take precautions to reduce their fire exposure.

Meanwhile, insurers and their agents are reluctant to discuss the state of their industry as it relates to fire insurance cost and availability in California. A person with insider knowledge of the industry was very hesitant to say anything on the subject for the record. She made it clear that major insurance companies are carefully guarding their image. The interviewee said the company her office represents only allows its agents to comment within strict limits, and talking to the media is tightly controlled from above.

Talking to reporters must be approved by the corporation.

You Can Safeguard Your Family, Pets and Property

The most important thing Californians can do to protect against wildfire damage is prepare for it ahead of time. It starts with gardening.

“Anywhere there’s vegetation there’s a possibility of wildfire,” Cal Fire’s Birchfield said.

Wildfire is often considered a wilderness phenomenon, but it isn’t limited to areas outside of the population centers. Even though it seems unlikely, wildfires can and do break out in urbanized settings. Giving buildings a 10-foot buffer – a defensible space – is key to keeping them standing. The ground should be completely bare in that zone, Birchfield said.

Defensible spaces should also be created for other fuel sources such as woodpiles and propane fuel tanks. Homeowners should also consider using more “hardened” materials in their yards. Rocks instead of grass will lessen fire danger, as will planting native, drought-resistant plants.

There are other steps to take as well, such as putting fine mesh over any opening into a home’s attic spaces. This can prevent sparks from entering the home should a wildfire break out. There are other not-so-obvious steps to take for preventing wildfire damage recommended by Cal Fire.

“I would recommend people going to the Cal Fire website and creating an action plan for their families,” Birchfield said. “It’s a really good tool for people who want to be prepared.”

Cal Fire’s wildfire preparation and prevention page is found at fire.ca.gov/prepare. It provides instructions for creating defensible spaces and a family wildfire action plan, including help for talking to young children about fire safety. Finally, it provides information about how to be ready to bug out if an evacuation order is issued.

Cal Fire also offers an app that can build a personalized wildfire response plan for families.

Fire Prep Makes a Big Difference in an Emergency

While a wildfire is raging close to your home is not an ideal time for thinking up a reaction plan. In fact, it’s probably too late.

So, before a disaster strikes is the time to prepare. Birchfield recommends knowing where your irreplaceable things are, as you’ll probably want to protect them or have them with you. Those include documents, ATM and credit cards, cash and family photos and heirlooms.

You should also make sure your batteries work in your smoke detectors, keep a list of emergency contacts in your car and on your phone, and let your neighbors know you have a plan and what it includes.

“They can say how many people are in the house, how many pets, things like that,” Birchfield said. “In the Tulare County area, we do have a lot of larger animals, so knowing the evacuation arrangements is important.”

Another critical safety measure is having an arranged meeting place for family members, especially the younger ones, in the event an evacuation is ordered.

“We don’t want people to be separated,” Birchfield said. “Especially with younger children, we want accountability for where everyone is.”

She also advises everyone to keep an eye on Cal Fire’s incident map to stay aware of where fires are burning. Cal Fire also has a very active social media presence providing constantly updated information on fires and fire safety.

The post Authorities urge caution, preparation for 2024 wildfires appeared first on Valley Voice.

If no candidate receives over 50% of the vote, there will be a May 21 run-off.

Two Democrats, four Republicans and three No Party Preference candidates filed papers to run for the remainder of McCarthy’s term. McCarthy endorsed Fong, his former aide, for this special election and the general election.

With 88.7% of the vote reported by the California Secretary of State, a run-off appears to be likely: 40.5% of ballots counted were for Bakersfield Republican Fong; 26.3% for Springville Republican Boudreaux; 23.3% for Bakersfield Democrat Marisa Wood; and 5.2% for Clovis Republican Kyle Kirkland.

The special election that covers Kern, Tulare, Kings and Fresno Counties was mandated because of McCarthy’s surprise retirement and is anticipated to cost four million dollars. The winner will only hold the seat for seven months until McCarthy’s original term expires on December 31.

If Fong wins the special election run-off on May 21, his assembly seat will become vacant and the secretary of state will be required to call another special election; Fong’s district covers Tulare and Kern Counties and an election is anticipated to cost two million dollars.

Boudreaux and Fong were also the top two candidates in the March 5 Primary. The two candidates will go on to the November general election and the winner will take the seat in January of 2025 for a full two year term.

The registrar of voters for each of the counties have until March 28 to submit the ballot count to the California Secretary of State for certification.

The post No clear winner in 20th Congressional District special election appeared first on Valley Voice.

Raw emotion and charged commentary filled the room at 210 Café Tuesday, February 13, when Tulare County Voices’ held a Prop 1 mental health and housing forum.

Proposition 1 on the voter guide says, “Authorizes $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance use challenges; provides housing for the homeless.”

The forum’s purpose according to moderator Paul Hurley, “is to provide some insight into how this measure would help improve two intractable problems in California: mental illness and homelessness,” but after the panel introduced the proposition, followed by some heated discussion, the audience was just as confused than when they arrived.

On the panel were: Natalie Bolin, Tulare County, Director of Mental Health Services; Ralph Nelson, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); Betsy McGovern-Garcia, Vice-President, Self-Help Enterprises (SHE); and LaTanya Ri’Chard, founder of Peer Voices of Merced County.

The panel was in agreement on what the measure would do and what was going to be cut, but they did not agree on how to vote.

Nelson and McGovern-Garcia were in favor of Prop 1. Bolin said that the county was taking a neutral position due to the cuts in youth services and Ri’Chard was a hard no.

(McGovern-Garcia said her opinion of the proposition did not necessarily reflect that of SHE.)

The panel agreed that the homeless cannot be successfully treated unless they are living in a stable environment. But Californians Against Proposition 1, and the panel, acknowledged that money for mental health services for children and youth, wellness centers, and suicide prevention, just to name a few, was going to be cut and diverted to building housing and mental health facilities.

Ri’Chard added that the majority of people suffering from mental illness already have a stable living situation and that the services on the chopping block are working and desperately needed.

What’s in Prop 1

Bolin explained that Proposition 1 has two parts.

The first part changes how money can be used in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).

Bolin said, “It’s not reducing our MHSA money. It’s changing how we spend our money.”

MHSA levied a one percent tax on incomes over $1 million per year in 2005 acquiring the name the “millionaire’s tax.” The act required that the money collected from the tax be used for mental health services and typically raises between $2 billion and $3.5 billion each year.

Currently, 95 percent of the tax goes directly to the counties and the rest of the money goes to the state.

Under Prop 1, that would be changed: the state would receive 10% of the MHSA funds, and the counties’ share would be reduced to 90%, meaning less money would be available to the counties for mental health services.

In addition, Prop 1 diverts 30% of the counties’ MHSA funds used for prevention and early intervention mental health services and requires the counties spend those funds on housing.

The second part of Prop 1 is a $6.4 billion bond.

The $6.4 billion would be earmarked to build more facilities for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges. Seventy percent of the bond money would go towards facilities and thirty percent would go toward housing.

After 30 years the state will have paid $9.3 billion to pay back the bond which would come out of the General Fund.

“In addition to funding 6,800 beds in facilities treating mental illness and addiction, the $6.4 billion bond would create up to 4,350 new homes for people who need mental health and addiction services — 2,350 of which would be reserved for veterans,” states the Legislative Analyst Office.

Hurley pointed out that California has an estimated homeless population of more than 180,000 and that according to a Legislative Anlyst’s Office (LAO) report only 13,000 units, at most, are going to be built with the bond money.

“How is Tulare County going to make out in all this?” he asked the panel.

“Not well,” Nelson said — Los Angeles takes 50% of MHSA’s money, he added.

Ri’Chard said that Prop 1 is a “one size fits all.”

“We need to have something that works for everybody. What’s going to work in Tulare [County] is not going to work in Los Angeles, but they are trying to make it fit,” she said.

Will Prop 1 help or hurt?

McGovern-Garcia started the discussion on if Proposition 1 will help or hurt in terms of serving the mentally ill.

She said the proposition will bring in resources to generate new housing such as the newly constructed Lofts in Visalia that provides 80 new living spaces. It will also build more facilities that provide beds for those suffering from substance abuse.

On the other hand she said, Prop 1 will cut funds used as supportive services for the mentally ill.

But McGovern-Garcia said that ultimately Prop 1 “was going in the right direction” and that she personally supported it.

“We can’t treat people with mental illness who live under a bridge. They need housing,” Nelson said.

He said the original priority for MHSA was to serve the severely mentally ill, get them services, and get them off the street.

“We need more housing for people with persistent mental illness and who are homeless, and this bill will provide some of those houses,” he said.

He explained Prop 1 expands the number of people who qualify to be served by the same pot of money, which is a problem. Originally, MHSA funds could only be spent on people who were persistent and severely mentally ill. Prop 1 expands that definition to include Veterans and people suffering from drug and alcohol abuse, he said.

Bolin concurred that MHSA will be expanded from people who were suicidal, homicidal or gravely disabled due to mental illness, to include people suffering from substance abuse, living in an unsafe living environment, or who have untreated medical conditions.

“Everything is spread out much thinner, so we are going to have to use the same money for more people,” said Nelson.

On the positive side, Bolin said the proposition will tackle the severe shortage of psychiatric beds. She said that right now when the mentally ill are put on a psychiatric hold, the hold expires before they are even able to receive treatment.

Seventy percent of Prop 1 money will go towards building out psychiatric facilities according to the LAO report.

Nelson agreed saying that if an individual is found incompetent to stand trial and they need to be in a facility to restore competency, “in Tulare County, it takes one to two months sitting in a jail waiting for an open bed to come up just to be treated.”

But Bolin did agree that Prop 1 will cut funds for prevention and that is why Tulare County Health and Human Services has taken a neutral stance on the measure.

Ri’Chard was in agreement that California needs more housing, which Prop 1 does, but she does not agree with doing it at the expense of mental health.

Ina Evangelho, an attendee, said after the forum, “the more I think about all that was said, the more I realize that the current status quo just is not good enough.  We need those mental health hospitals, we need more affordable housing.  The original MHSA that provides all the money our current system works with was enacted over 20 years ago, and the situation has gone from bad to critical.”

Involuntary lock up

A member of the audience expressed their concern for people losing their civil rights when subjected to an involuntary lockup.

Bolin acknowledged the person’s concerns saying, “What qualifies as a psychiatric hold will expand under Prop 1 which does take away your rights. It is an involuntary hold.”

Nelson explained one of the reasons to expand the definition of who can be locked up was that 50% of people who have a mental illness don’t realize they have a mental illness, and that’s when the mandatory lockup is necessary.

Ri’Chard was critical of this part of the proposition saying, “hospital beds are not homes.”

“When you lock someone away you can’t expect them to get better. When you lock someone in a jail how do they come out? A better criminal,” she said.

“I want housing to be voluntary, and not lock people up, while at the same time not lose services. Why take away services that are working?” said Ri’Chard.”

Why do we have to choose?

Towards the end of the forum an audience member voiced her frustration, “why do we have to choose?”

She said it seemed to her that supportive services treat the mentally ill, and without these services there will be more mentally ill on the street.

Ri’Chard said that she has firsthand experience with mental illness and peer counseling.

“I wouldn’t be here today without it,” she said.

She gave the example that if a bipolar person loses their counseling due to the cuts, they then may lose their job, then their car, then they will be homeless.

“We need a trickle up with more housing, not a trickle down,” Ri’Chard said

The post Prop 1: homelessness or mental health – who gets the money? appeared first on Valley Voice.