Their boss, Jose Chavez, said he tries to be vigilant about the danger of heat illness, making sure there is plenty of drinking water in the fields and that workers can take breaks in the shade and knock off early on blistering days. It’s a lesson he said he learned the hard way, after having to summon ambulances to the fields in past summers because workers were hobbled by heat stroke.

“We learned from that,” he said. “When you start taking people to the hospital, it’s not fun.”

That lesson, however, has not stuck with many employers, and 20 years after California enacted a landmark heat safety law, farmworkers across the state are still getting sick and sometimes dying from preventable heat illness. Advocates and some lawmakers say a toothless enforcement system is often to blame.

The law “is failing because of a lack of enforcement. It’s not doing what it was intended to do,” said state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose), a former farmworker who carried legislation last year that would have made it easier for farmworkers to receive workers’ compensation if they were stricken by heat illness on the job. The measure was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. “It is the kind of thing that should be keeping legislators up at night. People are dying.”

Last month, the California state auditor blasted the California Department of Occupational Health and Safety, finding, among other problems, that the agency’s inspectors failed to take proper action when workers suffered heat illness on the job. The audit also found that the agency was understaffed, and many of its procedures out of date.

In addition, a Times review of several recent heat deaths on California farms found cases where Cal/OSHA issued few or no penalties, even when workers died. In May of 2023, for example, a worker harvesting corn near Brawley fell behind his colleagues and then complained of stomach pain and began convulsing. He was rushed to the hospital, where he died of heat stroke, organ failure, and “underlying medical issues.” Cal/OSHA closed its investigation with no penalties, according to records.

A farmworker makes repairs to a tractor in a recently harvested field Friday in Woodland.

In a statement, Cal/OSHA Deputy Director of Communications Daniel Lopez said officials “acknowledge the state auditor’s findings and recommendations” and were working to make improvements. The statement also said Cal/OSHA has recently created an Agricultural Enforcement Task Force to improve working conditions for farmworkers.

The enforcement lapses come at a time when farmworkers — many of whom lack legal status and fear deportation — are already hesitant to voice complaints about working conditions, fearful that employers could retaliate by reporting them to immigration authorities. It is estimated that more than half of California’s approximately 350,000 farmworkers are undocumented.

This week, as the hottest temperatures of the summer descend just as harvest season hits its peak — and at a time when the Trump administration has stepped up immigration raids across California — some say farm laborers face more risks that ever.

“Over and over again, we have seen farmworkers go without the heat safety protections they are legally entitled to,” said Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers union. The state’s heat illness prevention enforcement system “isn’t working.”

California’s landmark heat laws were put in place in August of 2005, with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing new measures while standing with the family of a farm laborer, Constatino Cruz, who had died of heatstroke.

Cruz was the fourth farmworker to die in that brutal summer 20 years ago, in which heat deaths also claimed a man picking bell peppers in Arvin, a melon picker in Fresno County and a grape picker in Kern County. All had been laboring in the fields when temperatures were above 100 degrees.

The rules, which were the first of their kind in the country, require bosses to provide outdoor workers with fresh water, access to shade when the temperatures climb, and breaks to cool off whenever workers request them. Employers are also required to have a heat illness prevention plan and train supervisors to recognize the signs of heat stroke and seek medical help.

But the law was far from a panacea. In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union and the United Farm Workers union sued Cal/OSHA, saying the statute was too weak and the agency’s enforcement was “woefully inadequate.”

The suit said 11 farmworkers had died since the law went into effect.

Three years later, the nonprofit law firm Public Counsel filed another suit, alleging that the state’s failure to enforce the problems had persisted, and that farmworkers were continuing to die.

In 2015, the state settled both lawsuits, agreeing to focus on enforcement of heat safety violations, as well as making complaints more accessible.

Since the law was enacted, climate change has pounded the state with more frequent and intense heat waves, with little relief even at night. And in recent years, the enforcement problems have continued.

A 2022 study by the UC Merced Community and Labor Center found that many farmworkers were still laboring without the protections. Of more than 1,200 workers surveyed, 43% reported that their employers had not provided a heat illness prevention plan and 15% said they had not received heat illness prevention training.

Last year, a Times investigation found that Cal/OSHA inspections had dropped by 30% from 2017 to 2023, and the number of violations fell by more than 40%.

Assemblywoman Liz Ortega (D-San Leandro) said last year that there were “dangerous and illegal” working conditions on many California farms. “To say I’m infuriated is an understatement,” she said. “I don’t want to hear any more excuses. It’s excuse after excuse, year after year.”

This year, Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) introduced another proposed law, similar to the one Newson vetoed last year, making it easier for farmworkers to receive workers’ compensation. The bill, which faced opposition from farm interests, was approved by the Assembly, but held over at the end of the legislative session.

As the heat wave settled over California this week, workers in the watermelon field near Knights Landing said they were coming into work earlier — at 6 a.m. — and leaving earlier, to stay ahead of the heat.

As the sun beat down, water jugs were stationed every few yards and tarps providing shade coverage were stationed around the perimeter of the rows of crops.

Chavez , the boss, said he had not seen any of his workers suffering from heat stress recently. “Not this year, thank God,” he said.

The post Farmworkers keep dying from heat illness, 20 years after California vowed to protect them appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Trump has lashed out at his longtime political foe Gov. Gavin Newsom’s forest management policies and falsely claimed the state’s fish conservation efforts are responsible for fire hydrants running dry in urban areas. Referring to the governor by a derisive nickname, Trump said he should resign.

Meanwhile, more than 180,000 people have been under evacuation orders and the fires have consumed more than 45 square miles (116 square kilometers). One that destroyed the neighborhood of Pacific Palisades became the most destructive blaze in Los Angeles history.

Trump v. Newsom: Round 2 was to be expected — the liberal Democrat has long been one of Trump’s biggest foils. But the Western fires are also a sign of something far more grave than a political spat or a fight over fish. Wildfire season is growing ever longer thanks to increasing drought and heat brought on by climate change.

Trump refuses to recognize the environmental dangers, instead blaming increasing natural disasters on his political opponents or on acts of God. He has promised to drill for more oil and cut back on renewable energy.

On Thursday, Trump said on social media that Newsom should “open up the water main” — an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem. “NO MORE EXCUSES FROM THIS INCOMPETENT GOVERNOR,” Trump said, adding, “IT’S ALREADY FAR TOO LATE!”

Standing on the street in a scorched subdivision as a home behind him was engulfed in flames, Newsom responded to the criticism when asked about it by CNN.

“People are literally fleeing. People have lost their lives. Kids lost their schools. Families completely torn asunder. Churches burned down, and this guy wants to politicize it,” Newsom said. “I have a lot of thoughts and I know what I want to say, but I won’t.”

In a post on his Truth Social media network, Trump tried to connect dry hydrants to criticism of the state’s approach to balancing the distribution of water to farms and cities with the need to protect endangered species including the Delta smelt. Trump has sided with farmers over environmentalists in a long-running dispute over California’s scarce water resources. But that debate has nothing to do with the hydrant issue in Los Angeles, driven by an intense demand on a municipal system not designed to battle such blazes.

About 40% of Los Angeles city water comes from state-controlled projects connected to northern California and the state has limited the water it delivers this year. But the southern California reservoirs these canals help feed are at above-average levels for this time of year.

Roughly 20% of hydrants across the city went dry as crews battled blazes, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said. Firefighters in Southern California are accustomed to dealing with the strong Santa Ana winds that blow in the fall and winter, but the hurricane-force gusts earlier in the week took them by surprise. The winds grounded firefighting aircraft that should have been making critical water drops, straining the hydrant system.

“This is unlike anything I’ve seen in my 25 years on the fire department,” Los Angeles Fire Capt. Adam VanGerpen told CBS This Morning.

Janisse Quiñones, head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said the ferocity of the fire made the demand for water four times greater than “we’ve ever seen in the system.”

Hydrants are designed for fighting fires at one or two houses at a time, not hundreds, Quiñones said, and refilling the tanks also requires asking fire departments to pause firefighting efforts.

President Joe Biden, who was in California for an environmental event that ended up being canceled as the fires raged, appeared with Newsom at a Santa Monica firehouse on Wednesday and quickly issued a major disaster declaration for California, releasing some immediate federal funds.

But any additional federal response will be overseen by Trump, who has a history of withholding or delaying federal aid to punish his political enemies.

In September, during a press conference at his Los Angeles golf course, Trump threatened: “We won’t give him money to put out all his fires. And if we don’t give him the money to put out his fires, he’s got problems.”

Trump’s support in California has increased in recent years, which could further embolden him in his tussles with Democratic leaders there. In 2024, he improved on his vote share in Los Angeles and surrounding areas hit by the fires by 4.68 percentage points. And while he still lost the state overall, he grew his overall margin by 4 points compared to the 2020 election.

As for the impact of the fires on Californians, Trump said areas in Beverly Hills and around it were “being decimated” and that he had “many friends living in those houses.” He framed the losses as a potential hit to the state’s finances.

“The biggest homes, some of the most valuable homes in the world are just destroyed. I don’t even know. You talk about a tax base, if those people leave you’re going to lose half your tax base of California,” Trump said.

The post As wildfires rage in Los Angeles, Trump doesn’t offer much sympathy. He’s casting blame appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With initial results from all precincts, 56.8% of voters backed the bond measure, and 43.2% opposed it. Still to be counted are mail-in ballots not yet received and provisional ballots. Support for the bond broke 60% in Los Angeles, Alpine, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Mendocino, Alameda, Yolo, Marin and San Mateo counties. Only counties in the state’s far north opposed it.

Proposition 2 was one of two $10 billion state bonds on the ballot; the other was Proposition 4 for funding efforts to abate the impact of climate change. Proposition 2 supporters had worried that voters might choose one over the other, but both passed easily.

“What has been clear is that people support it when they understand what Proposition 2 will do and its impact on schools,” said Molly Weedn, spokesperson for a pro-Proposition 2 campaign. “People are seeing the need in real time. When you have a leaky roof, it only gets leakier.”

The campaign, organized by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), representing school districts and school construction interests that underwrote the effort, had not yet issued a statement Wednesday.

Even as enrollment in most districts is projected to continue to fall over the next decade, the need for unattended repairs and replacement of aging portable classrooms and buildings has mushroomed. The Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are more than 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 years old or older. 

Climate change has exposed more of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and underscored the need to replace aging or defective heating and cooling systems.  

The last state bond proposal, in March 2020, coincided with the emergence of Covid-19; anxiety over the virus contributed to its defeat as well as a majority of local districts’ construction bonds. Districts on the rebound from the pandemic were reluctant to ask voters to pass bonds in 2022.

Reflecting a suppressed demand for addressing facilities, a record 252 school districts asked voters on Tuesday to pass local construction bonds totaling $40 billion; an additional 13 community colleges proposed bonds totaling $10.6 billion. Thus, the demand for state help will far exceed the new funding.

Proposition 2, funded by the state’s general fund, needed a simple majority of voters to pass while local school bonds, which require increases in property taxes, require a 55% majority approval. A quick look at some of the larger proposals indicated voters were largely supportive, passing a $9 billion bond in Los Angeles Unified, a $900 million bond in Pasadena Unified and a $1.15 billion bond in San Jose Unified for upgrading facilities, with $283 set aside for housing for staff.

The portion of state funding for school districts will be distributed to projects on a matching basis, with the state contributing 50% of the eligible funding for new construction and 60% of the cost for renovations.

An estimated $3 billion in unfunded school projects from the 2016 bond measure, Proposition 55, will get first dibs at Proposition 2’s new construction and modernization money under the existing rules. Some of these projects have already been completed and will receive the funding retroactively. The rationale is that districts undertook the projects with the expectation that they would eventually receive state aid.

Once Proposition 2 runs out of money, a new line of unfunded projects will be formed for the next state bond. Interest and the principal for Proposition 2 will be repaid from the state’s general fund, at an estimated cost of $500 million per year for 35 years, according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

How money will be spent

The $10 billion will split as follows:

• $1.5 billion for community colleges
• $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, allocated as follows:
  • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables at least 20 years old, and other modernization work
  • $3.3 billion for new construction
  • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
  • $600 million for facilities for charter schools
  • $115 million to remove lead from school drinking water

The portion of Proposition 2 for community colleges will help renovate existing buildings, construct new classrooms and even replace sewage lines. The chancellor’s office earlier this year already approved 27 projects — totaling about $709 million — that will be covered by the bond measure in a first round of funding. They include projects across the state, from Shasta College in the north to Imperial Valley College near the Mexico border.

Across the college system, with 115 brick-and-mortar community colleges, more than half of the buildings were built more than 40 years ago, said Hoang Nguyen, director of facilities for the system. 

“It’s not like we’re sitting on newer facilities or anything like that. Our campuses are older,” he said. “So this proposition would be of great help.”

The state’s largest district, the Los Angeles Community College District, got approval for four projects in the first round. That includes a new building to house Los Angeles Trade-Tech’s automotive technology, diesel technology and rail systems technology programs, as well as a new kinesiology building at Los Angeles City College. There will also be sewer replacement at Los Angeles Valley and Pierce colleges.

“We’d like to think that our students, if they’re learning in these beautiful new buildings, will feel motivated to complete their training, get their certificates and get an education,” said Leigh Sata, the district’s chief facilities officer.

The portion for TK-12 will set aside 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction for small districts, defined as those with fewer than 2,501 students. It will also expand financial hardship assistance in tiny districts whose tax bases are too low to issue a bond. The state will pick up the full tab for those districts.

The bond will also allow districts to seek supplemental money to build gyms, all-purpose rooms, or kitchens in schools that lack them. But, contrary to the wishes of early education advocates, it won’t dedicate funding to one of the most pressing needs that districts face: adding more classrooms or renovating existing space for transitional kindergarten students.

Except for the set-aside for small districts, Proposition 2 will continue allotting matching money on a first-come, first-served basis, which favors large districts and small, property-wealthy districts with an in-house staff of architects and project managers adept at navigating complex funding requirements.

It also won’t significantly provide a bigger state match for districts with low property values; many lack a large enough tax base to issue bonds to meet basic building needs. Data from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley shows that property-wealthy districts, with more taxable property per student, have received a disproportionately higher share of matching state funding over the past 25 years.

One of the system’s outspoken critics is the nonprofit public interest law firm Public Advocates. Its managing partner, John Affeldt, said Wednesday that in passing Proposition 2, “Voters recognized the reality that so many facilities need significant modernization. But I don’t think voters are also aware of and approving the underlying distribution of the bond funds that send so many more dollars to high-wealth districts instead of low-wealth districts.

“We’ll continue to be a voice to make sure the state creates a system that equitably treats all its students,” he said.

EdSource reporter Thomas Peele contributed to the article.

The post California voters say yes to $10 billion school construction bond appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.