Much of what’s left on the table traces back to last year’s sweeping climate and energy agreement, though a handful of fresh controversies have also worked their way into the mix. Adding a new wrinkle to the process is Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who steps into high-stakes, closed-door negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas for the first time.

Here’s a rundown of five major issues likely to shape the final weeks of the session.

Climate fund fight looms large

Perhaps the thorniest issue on the table is how to divide up money from the state’s primary climate fund, an argument that spilled over past the June budget deadline without resolution.

Assembly Budget Committee Chair Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat, told reporters the climate spending plan would top the priority list once lawmakers reconvened.

At issue is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, financed through the state’s cap-and-trade style carbon market that charges polluting companies and funnels the proceeds into climate programs. Last fall’s deal to reauthorize that market also locked in an order for which projects get funded first.

The trouble is that new emissions rules adopted by the Newsom administration this year could cut that revenue stream roughly in half — putting billions in expected funding at risk and infuriating Senate Democrats, who floated their own competing spending plans over the summer.

So far, leaders have agreed to steer $115 million toward Newsom’s electric vehicle incentive program and $1.25 billion to shore up the state’s firefighting agency. Still unresolved is the fate of the high-speed rail project, which was slated to receive $1 billion annually through 2045, along with funding for safe drinking water, affordable housing and transit programs.

Separately, negotiators have yet to hash out how to divvy up Proposition 4, the $10 billion climate bond voters approved. Last year’s process for allocating those dollars drew criticism even from lawmakers themselves after some pushed hard behind the scenes to funnel money to pet projects back home — several with only a loose connection to environmental goals.

California Forever pushes for a deal

The tech-backed group California Forever, which has been trying to develop a large stretch of Solano County farmland, is making a renewed push for legislative relief from environmental review requirements.

For months, the group and allied labor unions argued that such a carve-out was essential to landing a deal with Saronic Technologies Inc., a Texas-based shipbuilder reportedly considering California for a new shipyard. California Forever wanted lawmakers to fast-track environmental reviews and override certain county land-use restrictions, but no bill ultimately came together amid pushback from critics who accused the group of trying to sidestep both local control and environmental safeguards.

Saronic announced last month it would build its shipyard in Texas instead — a decision California Forever blamed squarely on Sacramento’s inaction. “We were passed over because… our approval process cannot accommodate the required speed without special legislation, which was not passed in time,” the group said in a statement, adding that “California and Solano County must not miss the next opportunity.”

According to lobbying disclosures filed Friday, California Forever has spent $455,000 since last year lobbying the Legislature and the governor’s office.

The project appears to have a friend in the governor. Newsom’s office convened a meeting last Thursday that included Solano County supervisors, California Forever representatives, Assemblymember Lori Wilson and Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, both of whom represent the area.

Dee Dee Myers, who leads the governor’s office of business and economic development, also attended. Her office issued a memo last month describing the region as a “world-class industrial site” and emphasizing the economic upside of building a shipyard and manufacturing hub there. “California is better positioned to attract billions of dollars in investment, tens of thousands of new good-paying jobs and a more resilient supply chain than it has been in decades,” the memo stated, calling the proposed Solano Shipyard and Solano Foundry the clearest example of that opportunity.

Wildfire proposal raises questions about utility liability

Newsom is also expected to push wildfire-related legislation this session, though his office has yet to reveal specifics.

Consumer advocates, wildfire survivors and even some insurers suspect the governor is looking to reduce utility companies’ liability for sparking wildfires, shift recovery costs onto insurance customers, and make it tougher for fire victims to secure compensation or legal help. Newsom’s office has declined to confirm or deny those characterizations.

Spokesperson Anthony Martinez said any forthcoming legislation would stem from an April study by the California Earthquake Authority examining how the state can better prepare for natural disasters. That study was required under a last-minute agreement Newsom struck with lawmakers last year that forced utilities to contribute to the state’s wildfire fund while also letting them pass some costs on to ratepayers.

A coalition called Wildfire Survivors First — funded by utility companies despite its name — is now lobbying lawmakers to adopt several recommendations from that study, arguing they would lower wildfire risk and ease the cost of property insurance.

Most legislative leaders have kept quiet on what a final package might look like. Sen. Ben Allen, a Los Angeles Democrat currently running for state insurance commissioner, said he’ll scrutinize any bill closely and cautioned against measures that “simply shift around the costs consumers pay.” Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, who represents Eaton Fire survivors, said she’d fight any last-minute effort to cap compensation for fire victims.

Antitrust bill pits labor against business

Lawmakers must also decide the fate of a hotly contested bill that would allow Californians to sue large corporations in state court over anticompetitive, monopolistic conduct.

The measure, dubbed the COMPETE Act, has drawn fierce opposition from the business community, with the California Chamber of Commerce branding Assembly Bill 1776 “the largest expansion of antitrust law in world history.” The chamber warns the bill would expose companies of every size to sweeping legal liability.

Business groups also argue the legislation opens the door to a new wave of “private right of action” lawsuits, adding to existing complaints about California laws that already invite lawsuits over disability access, product warning labels, labor violations and consumer privacy.

The bill’s author, Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Davis, has drawn support from progressive, labor-aligned lawmakers as well as more centrist Central Valley Democrats such as Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains and Sen. Melissa Hurtado. Major labor groups, including the California Federation of Labor Unions, SEIU California and the United Food and Commercial Workers, are co-sponsoring the bill.

It’s scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 10.

Counties look for relief from costly abuse claims

Los Angeles County is spearheading a quieter effort to curb lawsuits filed by people who say they were abused as children by public employees while in county or school district custody.

The push comes amid a wave of litigation triggered by a 2019 state law that dramatically extended the statute of limitations for such claims — allowing survivors to sue until age 40, rather than the previous cutoff of 26 or within five years of recognizing the abuse’s lasting harm. The resulting settlements have cost local governments and school districts billions of dollars.

Last April, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a $4 billion settlement covering roughly 6,800 people who alleged abuse in county juvenile detention facilities, with some claims dating back more than 65 years.

Lawmakers tried to strike a middle-ground compromise last session through Senate Bill 577, authored by Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat, aimed at balancing survivors’ rights with financial relief for cash-strapped counties and school districts. That effort failed to gain traction, and Laird ultimately set it aside.

Now public employee unions are renewing the push, largely hoping to avoid concessions from financially strained public employers. Any resolution will likely be hashed out at the leadership level, between Limón and Rivas.

Original source: CalMatters

The post 5 Deals to Watch as California Lawmakers Wrap Up Session appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But here’s the problem: once the ballots are counted and construction crews move in, it becomes remarkably hard to answer a basic question — did these projects actually deliver what voters were told they would?

The state has done a reasonably good job tracking how bond money gets spent, largely as a safeguard against waste and misuse. What’s been missing is a consistent effort to measure whether that spending produced the results residents were promised.

The stakes are not small. Since 2000, California has issued $196 billion in general obligation bonds, with $81.8 billion still outstanding. This fiscal year alone, the state will pay nearly $8.6 billion just to service that debt. These bonds fund priorities that Californians clearly support, allowing the state to pay for long-term projects while spreading the cost across many years.

But as bond spending grows, so should the state’s commitment to showing what that money actually accomplished.

Did a wildfire resilience program funded by bonds actually reduce fire risk? How many families found housing because of bond-backed developments, and did those investments make homes more affordable? Did transportation or water projects deliver on their promises? These are the kinds of questions any investor would ask before putting money into a venture. Taxpayers and elected officials deserve the same clarity.

In the private and nonprofit worlds, measuring results is simply expected. Organizations don’t just report how much they spent — they show what that spending achieved. Public dollars should be held to the same expectation, not to point fingers, but to make smarter decisions going forward.

Right now, California requires state agencies to report on how bond funds are spent, but enforcement of that requirement is inconsistent, and the reports that do exist tend to focus on dollars disbursed rather than outcomes achieved. That leaves lawmakers, taxpayers and future voters guessing about what worked, what fell short, and what needs to change.

One modest step toward fixing this is Assembly Bill 1754, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco. The bill would require future statewide bond measures to spell out clear goals from the start, establish real benchmarks for tracking progress, and gather data that can be shared publicly in an easy-to-understand format. Picture something like a one-page report card for each bond program — not a bureaucratic mountain of paperwork, but a simple summary anyone could read.

Importantly, the cost of this reporting would come from bond administration funds, not the state’s general fund, meaning it wouldn’t compete with other budget priorities.

Some critics worry that new reporting requirements could slow down funding or add red tape. But defining how a project’s success will be measured should naturally follow from the goals used to justify the bond in the first place. The reporting itself would be brief — often just a sentence or a single data point per project, folded into a short summary rather than a lengthy audit.

Accountability and efficiency don’t have to be at odds. Better outcome reporting can actually help lawmakers spot which investments are working, refine future bond proposals, and give the public more confidence in how their tax dollars are being used.

That confidence is going to matter a great deal in the years ahead. California will keep asking voters to fund schools, housing, transportation, water systems and climate resilience projects. Those requests deserve the backing of a public that trusts the system is working.

The best case for future bond measures won’t just be that the state has pressing needs — plenty of places do. It will be that California can point to past investments and show they made a real difference.

Evidence builds trust. Trust builds confidence in public institutions. And that confidence is what allows California to keep investing in its own future.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voters Approved Billions in Bond Measures — So Why Isn’t Anyone Tracking the Results? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The transformation is thanks to California’s Farm to School program, which connects roughly 500 school districts statewide with local farmers and food producers to bring fresher meals into cafeterias. The initiative, launched in 2021, has proven popular enough that state lawmakers this month made it a permanent fixture within the California Department of Food and Agriculture, expanding its reach even further.

“I’m so relieved the state decided to step it up and make this program permanent,” said Christina Lawson, nutrition services director for Western Placer Unified in Lincoln, near Sacramento. “That’s been my abiding fear – that our funding would dry up after all this work we’ve done.”

The program is part of a larger state push to move school lunches beyond the soggy pizza and mystery-meat reputation of decades past. Districts use Farm to School grants to purchase fresh, locally sourced food, organize student field trips to nearby farms, and send cafeteria staff to culinary training so they can prepare dishes such as braised short ribs and roasted root vegetables instead of relying on packaged meals. A companion grant program funds kitchen equipment upgrades, and the state’s move toward universal school meals during the pandemic added momentum to the overhaul. Altogether, California has poured more than $1 billion into improving school food since 2021.

“Our goal is not only to ensure every California child has access to nutritious, locally grown, regenerative organic meals that fuel their full potential, but to continue setting the national standard for what school food can and should be,” said First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, who has long championed the state’s school meal reforms. “When we invest in healthy, thriving kids, everyone benefits.”

One key piece of the program, according to nutrition directors, is the use of regional food hubs that act as go-betweens for schools and farms. These hubs place orders with growers, handle deliveries, and manage the paperwork that can otherwise bog down cafeteria staff.

Spork, a Davis-based food hub, partners with more than 100 small farms and 40 school districts stretching from Crescent City to Los Angeles Unified, delivering as much as 120 tons of produce — roughly 720 truckloads — to school kitchens every week. Shipments include everything from vine-ripened cherry tomatoes and purple daikon radishes to Hakurei turnips and painted serpent cucumbers, a striped, thin-skinned variety with a mild, sweet flavor.

“What we’re trying to do is change kids’ eating habits at a young age by showing them how great fruits and vegetables can be,” said Jacob Weiss, Spork’s general manager. “People think kids don’t like vegetables, but we found that if you give them fresh, delicious vegetables, they love it.”

The program also gives a lift to small farming operations that often struggle with unpredictable markets. Roughly 600 small farms across California now supply schools through the initiative, giving growers a more reliable customer base for specialty crops that might otherwise go unsold.

Patrick Bollinger, co-owner of Foothill Roots Farm in Meadow Vista, grows 50 different crops on 20 acres in the Sierra foothills, much of it destined for the Tahoe Food Hub, which supplies Tahoe-Truckee Unified and other buyers.

“If we get an order for watermelon radishes, I know we’ll be able to sell them before we even get the seeds in the ground,” Bollinger said. “And when we sell to the food hub, we don’t have to do the deliveries or marketing. … It’s been incredibly advantageous for us.”

State estimates suggest every dollar spent through Farm to School generates $2.10 in local economic activity. Bollinger said the added stability has allowed him to keep more employees on staff year-round and lease an additional 8 acres since joining the program, while planning his plantings more efficiently between staple crops like carrots and winter squash and specialty items such as beets and chard.

At Tahoe-Truckee Unified, longtime food services director Kat Soltanmorad said she’s never enjoyed her job more in 25 years in school nutrition.

“We now have access to the richness of California agriculture,” Soltanmorad said. “It’s good for the economy, it’s good for the environment, it’s good for student wellness.”

Her team has rolled out dishes like barbecue ribs with garlic bread, organic mashed potatoes and kale Caesar salad, along with mango lassis and potstickers served with baked pancit and cilantro lime rice. Staff regularly taste-test new recipes with students and stock the salad bar with a wide range of options to appeal to different tastes.

“I have become a radish expert,” Soltanmorad said, pointing to varieties like baby French breakfast and Easter egg radishes sourced from nearby small farms. “We dress them up with Tajín and lime juice or cilantro, and the students love it.”

Eighth-grader Gage Gautheier, who transferred to the district two years ago from Reno, said the difference is night and day.

“In Reno they’d give us little sandwiches in plastic bags. Not cooked or anything, just a cold sandwich,” he said. “Here, they actually make an effort. They try.”

Back in Lincoln, Lawson grew emotional describing how Farm to School has reshaped her district’s food program. The 8,200-student district now serves homemade muffins made with locally milled flour, low-sugar Greek yogurt from Sierra Nevada Creamery, handmade tortillas and pupusas, and fresh produce ranging from kumquats to canary melons to finger limes.

The added work has also meant more hours and bigger paychecks for cafeteria staff, along with a renewed sense of purpose, Lawson said.

“It’s the best thing that’s ever happened to school food service,” she said. “The staff is happier, the farmers are benefiting. And the kids are actually eating the food.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post State’s Farm-to-School Program Expands, Boosting Fresh Meals — and Student Appetites — in Local Cafeterias appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The cameras — perched on utility poles, patrol cars and intersections — snap photos of passing license plates and instantly check them against law enforcement databases flagging stolen vehicles, getaway cars or vehicles tied to missing persons cases. Over the past year, the technology has been credited with helping solve homicides, bank robberies, hit-and-run collisions and even a wildfire arson case.

But the same tool that police praise as a force multiplier has drawn fierce criticism from privacy advocates across the political spectrum. Last month in Monterey County, a man was accused of ripping three of the cameras down with his truck. And civil liberties groups warn the devices open the door to abuse — from officers misusing access to stalk people, to out-of-state agencies potentially mining California plate data to track down abortion patients or providers.

More than 230 police and sheriff’s departments statewide now rely on the cameras, many supplied by the Atlanta-based company Flock Safety. That widespread adoption has renewed a push by Democratic state lawmakers to rein in how long agencies can hold onto the data and who gets to see it.

State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat, is carrying this year’s version of the effort, Senate Bill 1013. It would generally cap data retention at 30 days unless the information is tied to an open investigation or a missing-persons search. The bill also would require training for officers who access the system, mandate tracking of database searches, and bar law enforcement agencies from signing contracts with camera vendors that give federal agencies or out-of-state police default access to California plate records.

“This bill is about one simple principle: protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it’s too late,” Cervantes told an Assembly privacy committee last month.

The provision targeting vendor contracts stems largely from revelations that Flock Safety had, through a pilot program, allowed federal authorities to search local plate databases. Tracy Rosenberg of the advocacy group Oakland Privacy, which backs the bill, said local police departments were blindsided by the arrangement.

“They learned after the fact, like our advocates did,” Rosenberg said. “And we all said, ‘What the …’ You know, pick your four-letter word.”

Flock Safety has said on its website that it no longer runs those federal pilot programs and does not share data with immigration enforcement by default. The company maintains that local agencies retain full control over the information their cameras collect.

Law enforcement groups, however, remain firmly opposed to the legislation. At least 39 police agencies and officer associations have lined up against SB 1013, and those same groups have poured a combined $5.6 million into legislative campaigns since 2000, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, who leads the California Police Chiefs Association, pointed to a case from May in which a woman was shot and killed on an Orange County street shortly after testifying against her ex-husband in a restraining-order hearing. Investigators initially considered the ex-husband a suspect, but Thuilliez said Tustin’s network of 102 license plate readers — eight of them Flock cameras — helped detectives quickly clear him and instead track down the victim’s former boyfriend near the Mexico border. He now faces a first-degree murder charge.

“It’s technology mixed with good investigative work,” Thuilliez said. “But within one weekend, we were able to arrest the suspect for this person’s murder.”

Berkeley police reported similar gains after installing 52 Flock cameras last year. According to a department report to the city council, the cameras contributed to 121 investigations, 58 arrests and the recovery of 37 stolen vehicles. The agency’s robbery clearance rate jumped from 34% in 2024 to 49% the following year, which officials credited in part to the technology.

Those success stories appear to have swayed Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, when he vetoed a similar measure — also authored by Cervantes — that would have required departments to purge plate data within 60 days. In his veto message, Newsom warned that such restrictions could hamper investigators working cold cases or searching for missing people. He also noted the state budget lacked funding for the mandatory Department of Justice audits the bill called for.

This year’s version attempts to address those concerns by allowing data retention in missing-persons cases and making the audit requirement contingent on future state funding. Newsom’s office has not said whether he supports the current proposal, which has cleared the Legislature so far with only Republican lawmakers opposed. It now awaits action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The debate isn’t confined to Sacramento. In Washington, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has signaled he’ll introduce federal legislation to cut off funding to cities and police departments that deploy Flock or similar camera systems to monitor law-abiding residents, framing it as a Fourth Amendment issue.

For Rosenberg, the goal isn’t to eliminate the technology but to put guardrails around it.

“There is kind of a balancing act. We as human beings also need some camera-free space,” she said. “We don’t want to be on camera every minute of every single day.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmakers Weigh Privacy Concerns Over License Plate Reader Technology appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

One month later, the three-day Grand Opening took place with even more fun to offer. Each day had a special theme with July 23 being a true celebration, July 24 offering Awareness Day to highlight important nonprofits such as FFA and Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC), which help support families staying close to their children while they receive medical care. July 25 was dubbed Hero Day that put the spotlight on first responders and public safety in general.

Familiar characters were present at both events. The Hamburglar, Birdie the Early Bird, and Grimace posed for photos with youngsters and made their way through the long line of hungry diners to bring smiles to their faces before the doors were opened for ordering.

The newest location is at the Crossroads business area, which is owned by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. For the first day launch, the restaurant reached out to Soboba to request bird singers, a blessing and Tribal Council remarks. They worked closely with Joe Ontiveros and Jessica Valdez from Soboba’s Cultural Resource Department. The Andreas family offered some Cahuilla bird songs and was joined by several dancers. A blessing was given by Soboba’s Tribal Executive Officer Steven Estrada.

Estrada then welcomed everyone and Tribal Council members Daniel Valdez, Monica Herrera and Adona Salgado were introduced. Estrada said it is nice to have a major brand operation be the first to move into the Crossroads space.

“It’s good to see long lines because it just shows the need and use for the community overall,” Estrada said. “Tribal Council had some input on the design so it complimented Crossroads overall.”

He said the June 23 event was not just a ribbon-cutting ceremony but evidence of the Tribe’s resiliency, self-determination, and economic growth. Several years ago, Soboba purchased the off-reservation property, master planned it and put in all the infrastructure.

“We are here today welcoming a new business within the valley and into the community,” Estrada said. “They are not just providing economic support for the Tribe but economic support for the community as well by way of job opportunities, all contributing to the local economy so thank you to all who came out today.”

June’s opening found many attendees of the ribbon-cutting ceremony and introductions using umbrellas to shade themselves from the heat. But inside, the griddles stayed hot all day long as eager guests ordered their famous cheeseburgers at the special price of 80 cents each. It’s no surprise that they sold nearly 2,000 of them, while serving more than 1,200 customers on that first day.

Franchise owners/operators Randell Baremor and Ramin Ghaffari were recognized and applauded by Hemet/San Jacinto Chamber of Commerce and Greater San Jacinto Valley Chamber of Commerce representatives for their investment in the local community.

Robert Graves, Director of Operations for a franchise group, spoke on behalf of business partners Baremor and Ghaffari.

“We are truly honored to be part of the San Jacinto community,” he said. “From the beginning, our goal has been to be more than just a place where families can come together and share a meal. We strive to be a trusted neighbor, a dependable employer, and a positive force that continues to grow. We believe that a strong business helps build strong communities; that means creating meaningful jobs, providing opportunities for personal and professional development, and supporting our communities.”

San Jacinto City Council members Alonso Ledezma, Valerie Vandever and Mayor Pro Tem Clarisa Sanchez were introduced by Mayor Crystal Ruiz, who presented the franchisees with a certificate of recognition. It read, in part, “The City of San Jacinto welcomes you and recognizes the positive contributions your business will bring to our community. We look forward to your ongoing partnership in serving the residents of San Jacinto for years to come.”

Ruiz said, “One of my first jobs was at McDonald’s; they’re like our family. We welcome the partnership between McDonald’s and Soboba, who are the cornerstone of our city.”

Hemet Mayor Linda Krupa presented a certificate on behalf of the Hemet City Council to recognize their investment in the valley and wished them “continued prosperity and success in serving the residents and visitors of the valley.”

The office of 5^th District Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez recognized McDonald’s commitment and contribution to economic growth in Riverside County.

“We are grateful for the warm welcome we’ve received and look forward to serving our community with our delicious food for many years to come,” ARCS Training/HR Manager Elaine Contreras said.

Leon Clausen of San Jacinto arrived at midnight on June 23 driving his 1964 Malibu SS.

“I had this wild idea to do something spectacular like I was 17 again,” said the 42-year-old classic car enthusiast. I wanted to be the first person in the drive-thru of the new McDonald’s.”

Clausen thought driving his classic car to this classic restaurant would be very fitting. He added that security did a great job throughout the night as others arrived to be near the front of the line when the great deals started being served at noon.

For his efforts, Clausen was presented with a McDonald’s merchandise gift basket by San Jacinto Mayor Crystal Ruiz at the drive-thru window.

On July 23–25 from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. each day, there were prizes, games and special offers to celebrate the official grand opening. All those involved looked forward to sharing great food and great memories with the community.

“On behalf of McDonald’s, ARCS Restaurant Management, we would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to our incredible Team. It truly takes a village, and their dedication, hard work, and passion made our Soft Grand Opening a tremendous success,” Contreras said. “Most of all we would like to say thank you to the mayors, City Council members, Chambers of Commerce, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Tribal Council, and the entire community for their support.”

Franchisee Baremor said things are going smoothly and they have been busier than expected. Currently, there are about 55 employees working at the 24/7 site. No stranger to McDonald’s, Baremor has been involved with the fast-food chain since high school and worked for another franchisee in Orange County for 30 years. He partnered with Ghaffari 15 years ago and they now operate 18 stores.

“It’s important to us to fit in with the community,” he said. “We don’t want this to be just another McDonald’s. Wherever we go, we have to connect to the community and that includes Soboba. We have been so happy with the way things have been going because we want this to be a destination McDonald’s.”

Baremor said that everything the store does as far as special events is up to the franchisees with the only thing controlled by McDonald’s being the menu. But they don’t work alone, they have an extensive team of about 20 that helps with everything from training to technology and marketing.

“We don’t just hire workers for the restaurant, but we hire those that are skilled in other areas, too,” he said. “It’s about giving employees the opportunity to grow with us.”

It’s not all about revenue to Baremor either. He said he would consider success to be accepted by the community who allow his restaurant to become part of their day.

Looking to be a hub where community members can connect, celebrate and enjoy, the newest San Jacinto McDonald’s is at 528 W. Ramona Expressway. For details, www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/location/ca/san-jacinto/528-w-ramona-expressway/41045.html.

For more information about all local McDonald’s special events and promotions, please visit #arcsmcds on Instagram.

The post Soboba welcomes McDonald’s to the area appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The climate pattern, driven by warmer-than-normal waters in the tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds, has historically ushered in wet winters for Southern California. But its track record is inconsistent enough that emergency planners are hedging their bets rather than betting on a single outcome.

“Large El Niños tend to tilt the odds toward more winter storms moving through the north Pacific, and bigger ones too, because of the extra energy the ocean feeds into the atmosphere,” said Dan Cayan, a climate researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Still, the relationship between ocean warming and actual rainfall has grown less reliable in recent decades, complicating forecasts and pushing local governments to prepare for a broad spectrum of possibilities. Compounding the uncertainty is San Diego’s stormwater infrastructure, much of it decades old, along with a fleet of century-old dams that need major repairs.

In response, the city of San Diego has assembled an El Niño task force pulling in representatives from every municipal department to coordinate emergency response.

“From San Ysidro up through Sorrento Valley and Lake Hodges — anywhere there’s a creek, river or lake — we have to watch those spots closely to make sure we’re ready if extreme weather hits,” said Assistant Fire Chief Robert Rezende, who is overseeing the effort.

A pattern with a mixed history

El Niño takes shape when sea surface temperatures rise in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. The trade winds that typically blow from the Americas toward Asia slacken, sometimes even reversing course toward the California coast. That shift pushes warm water eastward, causing air to rise and spawning storm activity.

Meteorologists classify an El Niño once ocean temperatures climb a half-degree Celsius above average, according to Tyler Rodenbaugh, senior meteorologist for the San Diego County Water Authority. A reading of 1.5 degrees above normal earns the label “very strong” — which is where conditions stand today.

History shows these events can bring dramatically more rain. During the El Niño winters of 1982-83 and 1997-98, San Diego logged about 70 rainy days compared with the usual 40 to 45, and nearly 20 inches of rain fell at Lindbergh Field, roughly double a typical year’s total. Statewide, Sierra Nevada snowpack swelled as well, adding to runoff.

Yet the so-called “Godzilla El Niño” of 2015-16 broke that pattern entirely, delivering just 8 inches of rain at Lindbergh Field — well below normal.

“What actually happens depends on individual storms known as atmospheric rivers, and those don’t necessarily follow El Niño’s lead,” said Alexander Gershunov, a research meteorologist at Scripps.

Atmospheric rivers are narrow bands of concentrated moisture — essentially rivers flowing through the sky — that ferry water vapor from the tropics and can trigger intense downpours, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Flood risk on the ground

San Diego’s terrain — hillside developments, floodplain construction and a maze of canyons — makes it especially prone to flooding when storms do arrive. How much damage results often comes down to whether the region’s flood-control systems can keep pace.

The January 2024 flooding along Chollas Creek offered a stark example, damaging roughly 1,000 homes in the Shelltown neighborhood of southeastern San Diego.

Rezende described it as a “1,000-year flood” that couldn’t have been avoided, and Cayan noted the creek’s small watershed is especially vulnerable to sudden, intense rain bursts. But many residents believe the destruction was made worse by years of deferred maintenance. Thousands filed lawsuits alleging the city failed to properly maintain its storm channels, worsening the flooding. Survivors say they continue to grapple with health issues — rashes, respiratory trouble, swelling — that they link to floodwater exposure and subsequent mold contamination in their homes.

The city’s current budget touts more than $800 million already spent on stormwater upgrades, including 18 projects finished last year, but acknowledges another $3.3 billion in needed work without a clear funding plan. City officials did not respond to requests from CalMatters for additional details on stormwater spending.

Still, officials say they’re keeping up routine maintenance where they can. The Stormwater Department is clearing debris from channels to keep water flowing during storms, according to Rezende, and is coordinating with the San Diego Lifeguard Service’s swiftwater rescue team to clear vegetation, open gates and remove obstructions so rescuers can reach anyone trapped by rising water.

San Diego County is taking similar precautions, tracking weather forecasts and sending crews to clear drains and inlets, trim trees and sweep streets in unincorporated areas, county spokesperson Donna Durckel said.

Further north, Rep. Mike Levin recently secured a $26 million federal grant to repair the levee system protecting the San Luis Rey River near Oceanside and to clear sediment buildup from the channel — repairs residents had been promised since 1970 but never received.

Pollution remains a persistent headache as well. Communities in south San Diego and neighboring Imperial Beach regularly deal with sewage and industrial contamination flowing from the Tijuana River. Heavy rain can overwhelm treatment plant capacity, sending more untreated waste downstream and fouling coastal waters.

Aging dams add to the risk

San Diego’s flood-control challenges are compounded by dams that average 100 years old, among the oldest in the country. Four are flagged for safety concerns requiring repair, including the dam at Lake Hodges, which state regulators rate “unsatisfactory” with “extremely high downstream hazard potential,” according to the California Division of Safety of Dams.

That dam needs to be rebuilt entirely, but a plan to complete the project by 2029 collapsed after cost estimates jumped from $275 million to as much as $697 million. The San Diego County Water Authority, which had agreed to split the cost, pulled out once the price more than doubled.

The city is now moving forward on its own. In 2024, the City Council approved a 10-year, $100 million contract to manage its Dam Safety Program, expanding the team responsible for inspections and maintenance and drawing up 36 near-term repair projects, according to city spokesperson Jennifer McBride. Full upgrades across the system are expected to cost $3 billion over the coming decades.

In the meantime, the state has directed the city to keep Lake Hodges below 280 feet to reduce the chance of dam failure during a major storm. Some residents argue the lower water level is hurting wildlife habitat and could leave the area more vulnerable during wildfire season — a real concern given that El Niño years can just as easily bring drought as deluge.

Waves to watch

Beyond flooding, forecasters are also eyeing dramatic surf conditions this winter — a mixed blessing for surfers and coastal managers alike.

Rising sea levels driven by warmer water expansion, shifting atmospheric pressure systems and altered ocean currents can combine with unusually high “king tides” to produce punishing swells.

Such waves have caused serious damage before. During the 1982-83 El Niño, massive surf destroyed the historic Scripps Pier beyond repair and flooded the landmark Marine Room restaurant. “There was a lot of coastal damage because the big waves coincided with astronomically high tides,” Gershunov said. “The risk of coastal damage and erosion is higher again this winter.”

Still, he noted a silver lining: “I think the surfers who love big waves should be satisfied this winter.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post San Diego Braces for a Winter of Floods, High Surf and El Niño Extremes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The program, known as Operation Stonegarden, is administered by the Department of Homeland Security and distributes an average of $11 million a year to California law enforcement agencies that partner with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and its Border Patrol division on border security missions. Dozens of agencies across the state have tapped the grant over the years, including UC San Diego’s police department, which had participated since roughly 2012.

Reporting in February detailed how campus police used the grant money to patrol stretches of coastline near La Jolla in coordination with federal border agents. The revelation sparked swift backlash among students, many of whom said the arrangement put undocumented and international students at risk simply by association. By late February, students had flooded campus officials with emails and organized a public rally, prompting Police Chief Lamine Secka to agree, in a private meeting, to pull the department out of the grant program, according to student organizer Aryan Dixit.

University spokesperson Melinda Battenberg would not directly confirm that campus police had withdrawn from the program. However, internal emails from March, reviewed by CalMatters, show that Vice Chancellor Niraj Dangoria told a retired university employee and longtime advocate for Chicano education issues that the university intended to stop drawing on the grant and had no plans to reapply. A lieutenant with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, which oversees Stonegarden operations locally, later confirmed to CalMatters that UC San Diego would not take part in future rounds of funding.

Word spread fast on campus. Daniel Negrete, a fourth-year business economics student, said he was stunned to learn his university had any working relationship with the Border Patrol.

“I was surprised the university let this happen,” Negrete said. “There’s no way someone in upper administration didn’t know about this.”

Students who took part in a Feb. 18 walkout against Immigration and Customs Enforcement also called out the university’s ties to Homeland Security, according to the student newspaper, The UCSD Guardian.

Operation Stonegarden, created in 2006, is meant to strengthen cooperation between local and federal law enforcement on border security, according to a 2025 grant document, and requires regular information-sharing meetings and reporting between agencies. But the program has long drawn scrutiny from privacy advocates and raised questions about compliance with California’s sanctuary state law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation urged President Donald Trump to eliminate the program entirely in a 2025 memo, arguing that surveillance technology companies have incentives to push police departments into the program so they’ll purchase their products.

UC San Diego police sergeant Patrick Dobbins, who served as the university’s Stonegarden coordinator, told CalMatters in November 2025 that the grant covered overtime pay for officers running border patrols and was intended to support public health and safety.

Since 2020, Homeland Security has directed grant recipients to prioritize training officers to act as immigration enforcement agents — despite the fact that doing so is illegal under California’s sanctuary law. That directive became the grant’s overarching priority in both 2025 and 2026, according to federal grant documents.

In his March email, Dangoria wrote that UC San Diego’s Stonegarden funds were used “for operations focused on drug trafficking and human trafficking, not immigration enforcement.”

Still, Negrete pointed to a 2025 audit by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General that found only 15% of Stonegarden funds nationally go toward drug interdiction efforts, with the department itself describing drug seizures as merely “incidental” to the program’s operations.

“The idea that this is some innocent program that’s just about getting drugs off the street isn’t true,” Negrete said.

In Riverside County, the majority of traffic stops tied to Stonegarden operations in 2023 and 2024 by sheriff’s deputies resulted in intelligence-gathering rather than drug seizures or arrests, according to activity reports obtained by CalMatters through public records requests. Other law enforcement agencies declined to release similar reports, claiming they become federal property once logged into the Homeland Security Information Network. Battenberg said UC San Diego police can view such reports but cannot access them once they’re submitted to Homeland Security, and did not say whether the university would release its own reports through public records requests.

Dixit, an economics and cognitive science student who at the time served as associate vice president of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in student government and led the Student Civil Liberties Union, first emailed Chief Secka on Feb. 17 requesting a meeting to discuss “critical student concerns” about the grant. He said he never got a response.

A week later, the Student Civil Liberties Union teamed up with the Ellis Collective, a research group led by Negrete, and announced a rally for Feb. 26 protesting the police department’s acceptance of Homeland Security funding. That announcement, Dixit said, prompted Secka to agree to a private sit-down the day before the demonstration. During that meeting, Dixit said, Secka told him the department would suspend its involvement in Stonegarden and not reapply the following year.

Secka did not respond to multiple interview requests from CalMatters.

About 100 students showed up to the Feb. 26 rally anyway, with speakers denouncing the university’s longstanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities, according to The UCSD Guardian.

San Diego State University’s police department also received Stonegarden funding back in 2013, when Secka served as interim police chief there. The school hasn’t appeared in funding documents since. A spokesperson for SDSU police said those funds were used for drug interdiction efforts.

Meanwhile, other agencies continue to participate in the program, which is only growing. California’s overall Stonegarden allocation increased from $12.1 million in 2025 to $13.4 million for 2026, according to federal grant records. As of 2025, sheriff’s departments in 11 counties receive funding — Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Monterey, San Mateo, San Bernardino and Imperial. Dozens of smaller police departments have joined as well, alongside state agencies such as the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Parks and Recreation.

In fiscal year 2024, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Interagency Task Force, known as LA IMPACT, joined Stonegarden. The task force investigates serious crimes, particularly narcotics trafficking, and maintains some of the state’s most extensive surveillance resources, according to the state Attorney General’s office. It includes roughly 75 sworn officers from 48 local and state law enforcement agencies — a full roster that had not previously been made public. Michael Burke, LA IMPACT’s executive director, told CalMatters the task force’s Stonegarden activities are limited strictly to drug trafficking investigations in Los Angeles.

UC San Diego police had made no public statement about the grant until March, when a coalition of local educators called the San Diego Chicano/Latino Concilio on Higher Education, which advocates for Latino student success, pressed Chancellor Pradeep Khosla directly by email.

Patrick Velasquez, the coalition’s co-chair, argued that Stonegarden pulls police resources away from campus safety while enabling the purchase of surveillance equipment such as search cameras and data-collection devices. He noted that Dobbins had told CalMatters that campus officers don’t enforce immigration law directly but instead use border patrols to search for migrants crossing by boat. Velasquez also raised concerns that civilians can’t obtain information about Stonegarden operations from local police, and pointed to a 2025 Imperial County grant document that encourages officers to detain any suspected “criminal aliens” — raising fears that Latino students could be targeted based on appearance or language. The coalition demanded the university exit the program entirely, Velasquez wrote.

In his March 4 response, reviewed by CalMatters, Dangoria confirmed the police department would not reapply for the grant and said campus police have followed a decade-old University of California policy barring officers from working with ICE or detaining people based on suspected immigration status.

Dobbins had told CalMatters in 2025 that UC San Diego had participated in Stonegarden every year since about 2012. But Dangoria wrote in his email that campus police hadn’t actually taken part in Stonegarden activities since 2024 — a claim the university’s communications team corroborated. A 2024 funding agreement shows those operations were slated to run from April 2025 through February 2027.

In a follow-up message to Velasquez on March 11, Dangoria noted the police department could still apply for other Homeland Security grants unrelated to immigration enforcement, since the department oversees numerous federal agencies, including FEMA, which administers Stonegarden.

“I want to reiterate that UC San Diego is deeply committed to cultivating and maintaining a safe and welcoming campus environment for all members of our community, regardless of immigration status,” Dangoria wrote.

Original source: CalMatters

The post University of California Cuts Ties with Border Patrol Following Student Protests appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a decision issued this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal government has, for more than three decades, drawn a clear legal distinction between immigrants apprehended at the border and those detained after living inside the United States. That long-standing practice, the court said, has been abandoned under the current administration’s approach.

Historically, immigrants caught at the border have faced rapid detention and removal, often without a court hearing. Those already living within the U.S., by contrast, have generally been permitted to post bond and remain with their families while their immigration cases are pending.

The Trump administration has erased that distinction, treating both groups the same way — a shift that has packed immigration detention facilities beyond capacity and flooded federal courts with thousands of petitions from detainees seeking release, according to court records and prior CalMatters reporting.

Writing for the majority, Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Bress — a Trump appointee — noted that some of the immigrants swept up in the policy have lived in the United States for years. While acknowledging that federal immigration statutes contain conflicting language on the issue, Bress pointed to decades of consistent government practice as the deciding factor.

“We have 30 years of action here — the government has actively treated undocumented immigrants present in the interior of the country as people entitled to bond hearings,” Bress wrote in the opinion.

The case originated with immigrants held in the Seattle area, but the ruling applies broadly across the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which covers much of the western United States, including California.

The panel’s decision was far from unanimous, splitting 2-1, underscoring a broader divide among federal courts nationwide over how to interpret detention law for immigrants living inside the country. Given that lower courts have reached conflicting conclusions on the matter, legal observers expect the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately be asked to weigh in and settle the question.

CalMatters reporter Lynn La contributed to this report.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Court Rules Trump’s Mass Immigrant Detention Policy Breaks With 30 Years of Legal Precedent appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that for more than three decades, the federal government treated immigrants detained inside the country differently than those apprehended right at the border. Immigrants caught crossing the border can be held and removed quickly, often without ever appearing before a judge. But those picked up elsewhere in the country have traditionally been given the option to post bond and remain with their families while their cases play out in court.

That distinction, the court said, has been essentially erased under the current administration, which has applied the same rigid detention standards to both groups regardless of how long someone has lived in the U.S. The result has been overcrowded detention facilities and a surge of release petitions flooding federal courts, including a wave of cases out of San Diego.

“Some of these detained aliens have resided in the United States for lengthy periods,” wrote 9th Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, in the majority opinion. Bress acknowledged that federal immigration statutes contain conflicting language on the issue, but said the historical practice of multiple administrations settled the question.

“We have 30 years of action — the government actively treating unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the country as entitled to bond hearings,” Bress wrote.

The case originated with immigrants detained in the Seattle area, but the ruling applies broadly across the West, including California. The court’s 2-1 decision reflects a broader split among federal judges nationwide on the issue, and legal observers say the disagreement all but guarantees the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the case to settle it for good.

For Southern California, where immigration detention facilities and federal courts have absorbed much of the fallout from the administration’s enforcement policies, the ruling could bring some relief to detainees who have long argued they deserve a bond hearing rather than indefinite detention.

In other regional news, Republican Rep. David Valadao is bracing for another tough reelection fight in California’s 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of the Central Valley. Though Valadao currently holds a fundraising edge over Democratic challenger Randy Villegas, political observers say his path back to Washington is far from secure.

Valadao, a dairy farmer by trade, has built his political brand around bipartisanship and remains the last House Republican who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. First elected in 2012, he lost his seat once before, during the Democratic wave of 2018 that swept through California during Trump’s first midterm election.

Democrats are hoping to recreate that momentum this cycle, betting that voter frustration over tariffs and inflation will work against Valadao, who also cast a deciding vote in favor of Trump’s federal budget package — legislation that cut $28.4 billion from California’s Medicaid program.

Meanwhile, UC San Diego has ended its participation in a federal grant program that funneled money to campus police in exchange for assistance to Border Patrol operations, following reporting that exposed the decade-long arrangement. Students had pushed back forcefully after learning of the partnership, sending complaints to administrators, organizing a February walkout, and threatening a public rally.

University officials have not directly confirmed the decision, but internal emails from a vice chancellor indicated in March that the school planned to drop out of the program and would not reapply. The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, which oversees the grant’s operations, confirmed in May that UC San Diego would no longer take part in future rounds of funding.

In Sacramento, Gov. Gavin Newsom has named a new director to lead the state’s Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, filling a post that sat vacant for two years. The appointment of Nicole Dragoo, who previously served as the agency’s licensing chief, comes after reporting revealed the bureau had struggled to prevent conflicts of interest and curb abuses within the fiduciary industry.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Federal Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Mass Detention Policy appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Born and raised in Hanford, the Republican congressman grew up milking cows before school on his family’s dairy farm. To many of his Central Valley neighbors, he’s not “Congressman Valadao” — he’s just “David.” That familiarity has helped him survive in a district where registered Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans, allowing him to win five of his six congressional races since 2012.

But as the 2026 midterms approach, with inflation squeezing household budgets and President Trump’s approval ratings sagging, Valadao’s homegrown appeal may not be enough to save him this time.

“Unfortunately, David Valadao’s vote could be the one that gives Trump the power,” said Don Cameron, a longtime Fresno County farmer and registered Democrat who has voted for Republicans in the past. “I wish it wasn’t David Valadao, because he’s a good guy. I just wish the current administration was more moderate and more supportive of agriculture.”

Valadao declined multiple interview requests for this story. A spokesperson said he was unavailable to comment.

Standing in his way is Democrat Randy Villegas, a community college professor and school board trustee running an unabashedly populist campaign backed by the Working Families Party and progressive figures including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Villegas surprised many in June’s primary by defeating the more centrist, establishment-favored Democrat, Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains.

Valadao has lost reelection only once since first winning his seat in 2012 — during the 2018 “blue wave” that swept Democrats into control of the House during Trump’s first term. He won a rematch two years later against Democrat T.J. Cox. Notably, Valadao remains the only sitting House Republican who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Villegas, who is not a farmer himself, argues that it’s time for someone who understands farmworkers — not just farm owners — to represent the district. As the son of Mexican immigrant farm laborers, he says he has a personal stake in the region’s agricultural economy.

“Everybody and anybody knows somebody who works in agriculture in the valley,” Villegas said. “And anybody in the valley will tell you that workers and agriculture are struggling right now because of Valadao and this administration.”

A farming legacy

Valadao’s connection to agriculture runs deep. His father, Eduardo, immigrated from the Portuguese Azores, where he had grown up working on his family’s dairy farm. After settling in California, Eduardo and his wife, Maria, built their own dairy operation from the ground up — buying their first cows, then eventually their own land. Valadao grew up doing chores before school, a life he’s often referenced on the campaign trail.

His latest television ad plays up that identity, showing him walking through a tree nut orchard alongside an unnamed farmer with the tagline: “David Valadao is on our side.”

He has also cultivated a reputation as a bipartisan dealmaker, frequently teaming up with fellow Central Valley Reps. Jim Costa and Adam Gray, both Democrats, on water and agriculture issues.

“In the Central Valley, we care a whole lot more about ag and water than partisan politics,” Valadao said in a video posted to his congressional YouTube channel last December.

That reputation has translated into financial backing from agricultural interests. Campaign finance records show Valadao has received more than $30,000 from dairy, poultry and sugar industry political committees. Shannon Douglass, president of the California Farm Bureau, recently praised him for pushing House Republican leaders to direct more emergency relief funding toward specialty crop growers — the fruits, vegetables and nuts that dominate California agriculture.

“Farmers are happy with him, and they sure as hell are going to take him any day over someone that would seem to be a socialist and who doesn’t have any ag credentials,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist.

A liability on healthcare and food aid

Still, Valadao’s voting record on other issues important to his district — particularly healthcare and nutrition assistance — could work against him.

Democrats have repeatedly criticized him for casting the deciding vote to pass Trump’s sweeping budget package last year, which cut an estimated $28.4 billion from California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, and is projected to strip health coverage from roughly 3.4 million Californians.

“He’s looking out for his billionaire buddies,” Villegas said. “He doesn’t actually care about the agricultural industry here in the valley.”

The same legislation slashed federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by roughly 20% — a program overseen in part by the House Agriculture Committee, on which Valadao sits.

Rising costs squeeze farmers

Financial hardship is nothing new for California farmers, but the past year has brought fresh challenges. Volatile crop prices and climbing costs for fertilizer and fuel have accelerated a long-term shift away from independent, family-run farms. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of farms in California dropped by roughly 20%, even as the average farm size grew by more than 5%, according to the most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture.

Trump’s unpredictable tariff policies, along with the war in Iran and the resulting disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, have added even more uncertainty.

“It’s been a difficult 16 months,” Cameron said, pointing to surging diesel prices as a particular burden during harvest season.

The American Farm Bureau Federation has urged the Trump administration to deploy Navy escorts to protect fertilizer shipments moving through the Middle East, warning in a letter to the president that supply disruptions could trigger a repeat of the historic food price spikes seen in 2022.

Valadao, however, has largely pinned rising fuel costs on state policy rather than global instability, pointing to California’s gas tax and restrictions on oil drilling.

“We’ve always had the highest fuel prices in California, and it’s not because of a war that started two weeks ago,” he told a Bakersfield television station in March, adding that blaming Iran for fuel costs was “false.”

Latino farmers feel left behind

The impact of rising costs and shifting federal policy has fallen hardest on nonwhite and non-English-speaking farmers. More than 65% of residents in Valadao’s district are Latino, according to the California Target Book.

Advocates say the Trump administration’s restructuring of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made it harder for underrepresented farmers to access loans and support services that have historically helped them establish and grow their operations.

“Our members were complaining that the USDA offices, their local USDA offices, would tell them they don’t fit the definition of a farmer now,” said Benny Corona, a Tulare County organizer with Latino Farmers and Ranchers International. “They felt like they were being put through a lot of hurdles that weren’t there before.”

Corona, who supports Villegas, said his organization tries to build relationships with lawmakers from both parties but has found Democrats far more receptive.

“I don’t really think Republicans are really interested in promoting and investing in Latino farmers,” he said. “We don’t have a relationship with Valadao.”

Some political observers believe Valadao’s continued skepticism about the economic toll of tariffs and the Iran conflict could alienate voters who might otherwise give him the benefit of the doubt.

“I think he’s very likely to lose this year,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant. “The fundamentals are too anti-Republican, too anti-Trump for anyone to care.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Can Farm Country Save David Valadao Amid Another Anti-Trump Wave? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.