“This is like the mothership of forestry in California right here,” said Stewart McMorrow, staff chief for wildfire resilience at Cal Fire, standing outside the seed bank at the agency’s Lewis A. Moran Reforestation Center.

Those frozen seeds are the backbone of California’s effort to regrow forests after wildfire, particularly for private landowners who depend on them to replant scorched property. But by the state’s own estimates, the supply isn’t close to sufficient for the scale of destruction California is now experiencing.

Decades of fire suppression combined with a warming climate have produced wildfires so intense that they are killing off forests that once depended on periodic, low-intensity fire to regenerate. Instead of bouncing back, some of these iconic California landscapes are transforming permanently into brush and scrubland.

Over the past 25 years, severe wildfires have scorched roughly 2.3 million acres of California forest so thoroughly that natural regrowth is unlikely, according to a working draft of the state’s new reforestation strategy obtained by CalMatters. That’s a serious problem for a state counting on its forests to store carbon, safeguard water supplies, filter air pollution and provide wildlife habitat. One recent analysis projects that by 2071, California could lose half of its existing forestland.

“Reforestation,” said Malcolm North, a research scientist with the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station, “is pretty damn important.”

Yet Cal Fire estimates the state would need to roughly triple its seed bank capacity just to replant a quarter of the privately owned forestland that needs it — a tall order requiring more seeds, more storage, and more workers. And that doesn’t even touch federal land, which makes up more than half of California’s forests and accounts for most of the acreage awaiting replanting.

CalMatters reviewed the draft strategy, which is being developed by the USDA California Climate Hub alongside state and federal agencies, the nonprofit American Forests, and the Governor’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force. For decades, though, both Sacramento and Washington have allowed the funding and staffing needed for large-scale reforestation to erode.

“We need to focus on reforestation as an emergency, as a state,” McMorrow said. “We are slowly losing our forestland, and we’re not catching up.”

**A shrinking federal workforce**

Timber sales once financed much of the Forest Service’s replanting work. But as endangered species protections and other environmental rules tightened logging on national forests, and wildfires grew larger and more destructive, the agency’s budget and staffing took a hit. Non-fire personnel responsible for managing national forest lands dropped by nearly 40% between 1998 and 2015, according to a 2015 federal report.

A 2022 Forest Service document warned of a “critical need” for more staff dedicated specifically to reforestation work. Congress and the Biden administration responded in 2021 by boosting funding for a federal reforestation trust fund, a push backed by American Forests. Within a few years, the agency reported replanting about 285,000 acres nationwide in a single year — the highest total in more than 25 years.

Still, the need vastly outpaces what’s being done, and the process itself is slow. Crews first must remove dead and dying trees to reduce safety hazards and prevent future fires from reburning the same ground, according to a Forest Service spokesperson. Sourcing seeds and growing seedlings can then take another year or two before any planting begins.

Solomon Dobrowski, a landscape ecology professor at the University of Montana, said the federal government’s reforestation capacity didn’t disappear overnight — and won’t come back quickly, either. His research found that the reforestation backlog spans millions of acres across the West and could double or triple in coming decades.

“You don’t turn that ship around on a dime,” Dobrowski said.

Instead, the Trump administration slashed Forest Service staffing by 20% last year.

“It just makes me cry at night … it’s basically a child swinging a wrecking ball,” said Hugh Safford, a fire ecologist at UC Davis and former Forest Service regional ecologist. “Morale is down, capacity already was really minimal.”

Meanwhile, the fires keep coming.

**The gap keeps growing**

“This is one of the least-known impacts of climate change and megafires,” said Patrick Wright, director of the state’s wildfire task force, referring to forest loss.

The draft strategy obtained by CalMatters doesn’t come with dedicated funding attached. Instead, Wright said, its purpose is to get every agency and organization involved in reforestation working from the same playbook — streamlining permitting, prioritizing projects that protect water supplies and public safety, and expanding the pipeline of seeds, seedlings and trained workers.

It also encourages land managers to plant trees at lower densities with more natural spacing, moving away from the traditional tightly packed rows of seedlings. Researchers have linked dense plantings to more severe wildfires down the road.

The most sobering numbers in the draft concern the current pace of work. To meet the state’s existing post-fire replanting targets — which call for 280,000 acres per year starting in 2030 — California would need to expand its reforestation efforts by 35% annually. That kind of expansion would require substantial new funding, the report notes, since replanting can cost as much as $6,400 per acre.

Right now, the state is falling well short. Since 2020, land managers have replanted about 254,000 acres of severely burned forest — only around 16% of the forestland stripped bare by high-severity fire between 2020 and 2024. On federal land outside designated wilderness, the figure drops to just 8%.

Safford’s own research paints an even bleaker picture. Once wilderness areas and forests likely to regrow naturally are factored in, his recent study found the Forest Service replanted only 1.2% of its California lands burned by high-severity wildfire between 2016 and 2023.

It wasn’t always this way, Safford said. Replanting efforts largely kept up with wildfire losses until around 2006.

“And then,” he said, “it just falls to shit.”

**‘Nowhere near prepared’**

Despite public sparring between Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump over forest management, state and federal reforestation efforts — and funding — often overlap on the ground.

Cal Fire funds research, issues grants for forest restoration on private, state and even federal land, and operates the Davis reforestation center, where rows of young conifer seedlings get misted in the summer heat.

McMorrow, dressed in Cal Fire’s navy uniform, can’t resist pulling weeds from around the seedlings as he walks the nursery rows.

One of the biggest bottlenecks, he said, is simply gathering enough seeds — getting trained climbers to the right trees at the right moment to collect ripe cones before they fall or rot.

“Believe me, I do it,” said McMorrow, who helped launch Cal Fire’s tree-climbing program. “We are trying to meet the demand that’s in front of us, and it’s crushing.”

Even so, the funding for Cal Fire’s reforestation work — pieced together from the state budget, federal grants and one-time allocations — remains a small and unpredictable slice of the agency’s multibillion-dollar budget.

The Davis facility actually shut down in the early 2000s amid statewide budget cuts, though the seed bank freezer kept running. It didn’t fully reopen until 2017, after lawmakers redirected a 2012 fee on wood products to bring it back to life. Now, upgrading and expanding the center carries an estimated $26.2 million price tag; this year’s state budget allocated just $1.2 million for preliminary planning.

Other funding sources are also uncertain. In May, California’s climate regulators — led by Newsom appointee Lauren Sanchez — voted to overhaul a major climate program in ways that could slash or eliminate up to $200 million a year earmarked for wildfire resilience, with reforestation grants competing against many other priorities for what remains. And while the Proposition 4 climate bond includes $1.5 billion for wildfire and forest resilience, state leaders are already spending it down quickly.

“The truth of the matter is that California is probably, infrastructurally speaking, in a better place than any other western state,” Safford said. “What that tells you is how piss-poor the capacity is in general in the Western U.S., because California is nowhere near prepared for the scale of this.”

**Hunting for cones**

On the shores of Jenkinson Lake in the Sierra Nevada foothills, Stella Krone and Elyse Wohlenberg wrestled with an oversized slingshot nearly as tall as they were, working together to stretch the bungee cord into place before Wohlenberg stepped clear.

“All clear?” Krone called out, aiming the slingshot toward a Douglas fir some 50 yards off. “Firing!”

Krone, Wohlenberg and dozens of others — some forestry professionals, others simply curious — had gathered for Cone Camp, a training program run by American Forests with support from Cal Fire and the U.S. Forest Service. Participants fanned out across the forest with slingshots and modified potato guns, learning to knock loose pine cones to check for ripeness before sending climbers up to harvest them for the seed bank.

But this year, cones were scarce. As Krone and another participant tugged on a rope slung over the canopy, only a scattering of last season’s dried-out cones dropped to the forest floor.

“So far, not a great cone year,” said Leana Weissberg, American Forests’ California director.

Undeterred, the group regrouped and moved on to try their luck at another tree.

“Let’s go,” Krone said. “We’re cone hunters for a reason.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Wildfire-Scarred Forests Are Being Replanted Faster Than They Can Regrow appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency program, known as CalSHAPE, was created in 2020 to help schools assess the condition of their HVAC systems and then pay for needed repairs or replacements. But in 2024, the California Energy Commission halted the program early, citing budget pressures. The result: of more than 4,500 schools that completed assessments showing HVAC problems, only 172 actually received money to fix them.

A state audit released in 2025 found the commission’s own overly complicated application process was largely to blame, leaving districts at risk of missing deadlines tied to returning unspent ratepayer funds to utilities. Auditors recommended the commission either find a way to spend the remaining money or ask lawmakers to formally end the program early. Neither happened. Instead, roughly $200 million has simply sat unused while school advocates lobby for its release.

Local districts say they’re feeling the effects directly. In the Temecula Valley Unified School District, an assessment funded through the program’s first phase found that about a third of its heating and cooling equipment is near the end of its usable life. But before the district could apply for upgrade funding, the state stopped accepting applications.

“There are periods of the school year where it’s pretty much baking all day long, and some of the older units can’t keep up,” said Greg Page, an energy management specialist for the district. “Our team is working by emergency pretty much nonstop during those hot times.”

Torrance Unified School District ran into the same problem. After receiving $2.4 million to survey its facilities, the district identified 300 air conditioning units that had outlived their usefulness — but missed the window to seek money for replacements.

“This was money that was pulled back unjustifiably,” said Keith Butler, Torrance Unified’s deputy superintendent. “This is a good use of funds that has been set aside already — we just wanted it to go back out to finish the work.”

Butler said his district has been patching together temporary fixes to keep classrooms cool, but warned that some systems won’t last much longer. “We’ve been band-aiding what we have,” he said, “but there will be a point where they are not working in the not too distant future.”

The program was funded through a 2020 state law that required major utility companies — including Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas Company — to set aside a portion of their energy efficiency budgets for school facility upgrades. Combined, utilities contributed nearly $1 billion, of which $191 million remains unspent.

The funding mechanism has long been contentious. State finance officials warned before the program’s creation that it would raise utility rates, and a 2023 energy commission report confirmed that ratepayers had shouldered roughly $1 billion in costs. Utility rates have since climbed sharply — up 57% for Southern California Edison customers over the past five years, according to a report from the California Public Advocates Office, much of that driven by wildfire mitigation spending.

Some ratepayer advocates argue the program should never have been funded this way in the first place. “The fact that schools need new HVAC systems has nothing to do with producing electricity, delivering electricity, or generating electricity,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.

But school advocates counter that halting the program now, after money has already been collected and earmarked, does little to help either students or ratepayers. If the leftover funds are returned to utility customers, the payout would amount to just $2 to $24 per household spread over a year — a figure critics call too small to be meaningful.

“We’re going to kneecap this program out of some philosophical argument about how programs should be funded?” said JuNelle Harris, founder of Clean Air Allies, a nonprofit focused on air quality in schools. “If the money is there and the program is working, why would we not use that money and try to make the program as successful as possible?”

Legislative efforts to resolve the standoff have stalled repeatedly. A 2024 bill aimed at speeding ratepayer refunds never received a committee hearing, and a 2025 proposal to extend CalSHAPE through 2030 was similarly blocked. State officials have pointed to Proposition 2, a $10 billion facilities bond, as an alternative funding source, but demand for those dollars already outstrips what’s available. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who authored the bond measure, said it was never intended to replace CalSHAPE, noting the program specifically directs a quarter of its funding toward underserved communities — and has actually exceeded that target, delivering 45% to those areas.

Now, lawmakers are considering a narrower fix: spending about $70 million in interest earned on the unused CalSHAPE funds on a separate initiative known as a virtual power plant program, which links home solar panels, batteries and smart thermostats to help utilities manage electricity demand during heat waves. School advocates are pushing to use that moment to reopen CalSHAPE applications instead.

Senate budget staff have recommended extending the program, but its ultimate fate now rests on closed-door budget negotiations between the Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration expected to continue through August. A spokesperson for the governor declined to comment.

For families in districts still waiting on repairs, the outcome could determine whether classrooms remain livable during the hottest months of the school year — a growing concern as research continues to show that heat negatively affects student learning and test performance.

Original source: CalMatters

The post State Left $200 Million in School Air Conditioning Funds Unspent, Report Finds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to drop the shutoff-protection trigger from 100 degrees to 90 degrees, rejecting a competing proposal favored by utility companies. That plan would have set a higher cutoff tied to CalHeatScore, a newly developed state index that rates heat risk by ZIP code, while keeping the 100-degree threshold as a fallback in areas without index data.

Consumer advocates had pushed hard for the lower threshold, arguing that a wider safety net is especially critical for residents in rural communities, where a power outage can also mean losing access to water pumps and air conditioning or fans needed to stay safe during dangerous heat.

For Inland Empire and Southern California residents, where summer temperatures regularly climb into the 90s and above, the rule change means more days when utilities cannot legally disconnect service over unpaid bills, giving vulnerable households additional protection during the hottest stretches of the year.

The commission’s decision comes as state leaders continue to grapple with the broader effects of extreme heat, including on the youngest Californians. Two new state laws targeting school heat safety underscore the same concern that is driving utility policy: protecting people, especially those with fewer resources, from the physical toll of rising temperatures.

Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation directing the state board of education to consider adding heat-illness education to school curricula. The law does not require schools to act, but backers say it lays important groundwork. Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican who authored the bill, said the measure “promotes awareness and prevention” and arms students with “the knowledge to protect themselves” when temperatures spike.

A separate law passed in 2024 required school districts statewide to have heat-safety plans in place by July 1 of this year. Those plans must outline alternatives to outdoor activities, such as moving practices or recess indoors, when extreme heat hits. The July 1 deadline marked a key milestone for districts working to formalize their response to increasingly common heat events.

Still, critics note that neither law comes with dedicated funding, meaning schools are not required to invest in the kind of physical upgrades, such as improved air conditioning systems or added shade structures, that many advocates say are ultimately necessary to keep students safe as heat waves intensify.

Together, the utility shutoff rules and the new school heat laws reflect a broader shift in how California is confronting climate-driven heat risk, treating it not just as a summer inconvenience but as a public health and safety issue that touches everything from utility bills to the school day.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Utilities Must Limit Power Shutoffs During Extreme Heat Under New Rules appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed legislation directing the California Board of Education to consider adding lessons on heat illness symptoms to the state’s health curriculum. It follows a separate law, signed in 2024, that required school districts across the state to finalize heat-safety protocols for outdoor activities by July 1 of this year.

Both measures are being welcomed by parents, school nurses and environmental advocates as important first steps. But critics note that neither law comes with funding attached — meaning schools still lack money for the air conditioning upgrades, shade structures and updated curriculum that experts say are truly needed to keep children safe as heat waves grow more frequent and severe.

“These laws show that kids in California are already being hurt by extreme heat,” said Sarah Matsumoto, policy director for the nonprofit Green Schoolyards America. “This isn’t some future risk. We need a real, comprehensive plan to protect children from it now.”

A student’s idea becomes law

The push for heat education legislation traces back to a fourth grader in Sacramento. During a brutal, record-setting heat wave in 2022, the air conditioning failed in Natalie Rubio’s school cafeteria, forcing students to eat lunch outdoors in triple-digit temperatures.

Rubio, now 13, remembers classmates growing flushed, developing headaches and showing other signs of heat illness that day. She later brought her experience to state lawmakers, helping inspire Assembly Bill 1653, authored by Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican.

“This bill creates no mandates,” Lackey said during a legislative hearing. “It simply promotes awareness and prevention. Because sometimes the most powerful way to protect our students is by giving them the knowledge to protect themselves.”

The stakes are rising. According to Tracking California, a public health surveillance project run by the Public Health Institute, 618 children ages 5 to 17 were treated in California emergency rooms for heat-related illness in 2024 — a roughly 30% increase over the year before.

Extreme heat has also disrupted learning statewide. Data from the nonprofit UndauntedK12 shows California students lost more than 40,000 hours of classroom instruction during the 2025-26 school year due to heat-related closures, which accounted for nearly three-quarters of all weather-related school shutdowns in the fall semester.

Rubio hopes the new law leads to short, age-appropriate lessons and regular reminders during heat waves. “I want schools to teach every student the signs and symptoms of heat illness and how to respond in a memorable way,” she said.

However, the law does not guarantee new classroom material will actually appear. Any changes would have to be folded into the state’s health education framework — a voluntary guide covering topics such as nutrition and mental health that was last updated in 2019. According to the governor’s office, updating that framework again would require the Legislature to both authorize and fund the effort. The state Board of Education did not respond to questions about its plans.

Stephanie Seidmon, a project manager with UndauntedK12, said her organization backed the bill in part because it offers a low-cost option “at a time when our state budget is limited.”

Even without curriculum changes yet in place, school nurses say simply raising awareness could help. “Students might not realize that this headache or this dizziness might not just be feeling tired but could be a sign of heat illness,” said Rosemarie Dowell, government relations chair for the California School Nurses Organization. “That can empower them to react for themselves, react for somebody else, to encourage them to get water, find shade, or tell an adult.”

New rules for outdoor activity

Currently, the California Department of Education offers no statewide standard for how hot is too hot for outdoor recess or physical education. Instead, districts are pointed toward general resources, including state health department guidance defining “extreme heat” as conditions lasting more than two days and nights.

At the high school sports level, an estimated 9,000 student athletes nationwide suffer from heat-related illness each year, with most cases occurring in August, according to national research. The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school athletics, does set enforceable heat rules, including guidelines on practice scheduling and hydration breaks.

Senate Bill 1248, authored by Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Bakersfield Democrat, requires all California schools to establish formal protocols for outdoor activities during extreme heat, including clear thresholds for canceling recess or sports practice, monitoring weather conditions, offering indoor alternatives, and training staff to spot signs of heat stress. Districts were required to have those plans finalized by July 1.

The law was inspired by the death of Yahshua Robinson, a 12-year-old Lake Elsinore student who collapsed and died in August 2023 during a P.E. class held in extreme heat. Testifying before lawmakers in 2024, his mother described the conditions that led to his death.

“It was in the nineties outside that day, and even the best and highly trained athletes wouldn’t run in it,” she said. “Yet Yahshua’s class of middle schoolers were made to run in that heat. Physical education should happen only in environments conducive for physical activity.”

A costly problem, still unfunded

While the new laws focus on education and planning, advocates argue the deeper issue is infrastructure — and money. Many California schools, particularly older campuses, were never built to withstand the kind of sustained heat now common across the state.

“Many of our school buildings were built before the era of extreme heat fueled by climate change,” Seidmon said. “Our kids are playing on playgrounds, in schoolyards and on fields that don’t have shade… It’s critical that our school buildings and grounds protect our children from extreme heat.”

Emily Penner, an associate professor of education at UC Irvine studying how schools are adapting to rising temperatures, said responses vary significantly depending on region. Districts that have already dealt with severe heat for years tend to be quicker to adopt heat-resistant playground materials or prioritize air-conditioned school buses.

“This is a case where we have some pretty concrete things we know we need to do, like put HVAC at most schools across the state,” Penner said, “and now we have to figure out how to marshal political support for something like that.”

Funding falls short

Even when money has been made available, it hasn’t stretched far enough. In 2020, state lawmakers created CalShape, a ratepayer-funded program to help schools assess and upgrade aging air conditioning systems. But the California Energy Commission, which administers the program, paused new applications in 2024 due to budget pressures. Roughly $200 million in unused funds could be returned to investor-owned utilities if the Legislature doesn’t act by year’s end.

Voters approved additional funding in 2024 through Proposition 2, a $10 billion school facilities bond — but statewide modernization needs already exceed what that money can cover. A separate measure, Proposition 4, directs another $10 billion toward climate-related projects, including $50 million for California’s Urban Forestry Program, which supports efforts to add greenery and shade, including at school sites.

Still, advocates say the state has a long way to go.

“Compared to the federal government and many states, California is one of the leaders in this issue,” Matsumoto said. “And we are still not collectively meeting the moment.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post State’s New Heat Safety Laws Aim to Protect Kids as Summer Temperatures Soar appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The trees, known for their twisted limbs and stark silhouettes, are found largely within the Mojave Desert, including areas in and around Joshua Tree National Park. The park remains a powerful economic engine for surrounding communities. In 2024, about 3 million visitors spent $179 million in the region, producing an estimated $214 million in local economic benefits, according to National Park Service data.

But conservation concerns are mounting as new energy and mining proposals move forward across the desert. Several large solar projects and rare earth mineral developments have been proposed in Joshua tree habitat. One approved solar project near Boron is expected to require the removal of 4,200 Joshua trees. Another rare earth mining proposal near Joshua Tree National Park could affect 32 square miles of habitat if it is developed.

Supporters of renewable energy projects point to their role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels, but conservation advocates say those benefits must be weighed against the loss of desert habitat and the long-term survival of Joshua trees.

The threat is not limited to development. Recent severe droughts have strained Joshua trees, despite their adaptation to hot and dry desert conditions. Climate projections point to more intense heat waves and drought in the decades ahead. Because Joshua trees can take at least 30 years to mature, scientists have warned that changing conditions could outpace their ability to adapt. Some research has suggested the species could be pushed toward extinction by the end of the century if current trends continue.

The loss of Joshua trees would affect more than the landscape. Twenty-five bird species depend on them, along with rare wildlife such as the pallid blue dotted butterfly and the desert tortoise. The Mojave Desert may appear sparse, but its ecosystem is highly connected, and Joshua trees provide important habitat in that network.

Their disappearance also could have serious consequences for desert towns that rely on park tourism and outdoor recreation. Communities near Joshua Tree National Park benefit from visitors who come to hike, camp, photograph the landscape and experience the desert environment.

Joshua trees have survived since the late Ice Age, when scientists believe now-extinct giant ground sloths helped disperse their seeds. Today, with those animals long gone and the climate changing rapidly, their future increasingly depends on human decisions about land use, conservation and development.

Conservation groups, including the Mojave Desert Land Trust, have been working to protect desert habitat and promote strategies aimed at preserving Joshua trees and the broader ecosystem. Advocates say local governments, businesses and state leaders should treat Joshua tree protection as a priority when considering new projects in the Mojave.

For many Southern California residents, Joshua trees are more than a backdrop. They are part of the region’s natural identity and a reminder of the fragile desert life that has endured for thousands of years. Without stronger protections, conservationists warn, future generations may not have the chance to see them standing across the Mojave.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Thousands of Joshua Trees Threatened as Mojave Desert Development Expands appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Joshua trees draw visitors from around the world to Joshua Tree National Park and surrounding desert communities, where tourism is a major economic driver. In 2024, about 3 million visitors to the park spent $179 million, producing an estimated $214 million in economic benefits for nearby communities, according to National Park Service data.

But as interest grows in energy and mining projects across the Mojave, conservation advocates and researchers warn that the habitat supporting Joshua trees is increasingly at risk.

Several large-scale solar developments and rare earth mining proposals are under consideration or moving forward in the region. One approved solar project near Boron is expected to remove about 4,200 Joshua trees. Another proposed rare earth mining project outside Joshua Tree National Park could affect roughly 32 square miles of Joshua tree habitat if it proceeds.

Supporters of renewable energy projects point to their role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and expanding clean power. But critics argue that such projects must be planned carefully to avoid sacrificing fragile desert ecosystems in the process.

Joshua trees already face significant environmental stress. Although they are adapted to harsh desert conditions, recent record-breaking droughts and extreme heat have strained the species. Climate projections indicate the Mojave could see more severe droughts and heat waves in the decades ahead.

Because Joshua trees often take at least 30 years to mature, scientists have warned that changing conditions may outpace the trees’ ability to adapt or reproduce successfully. Some research suggests Joshua trees could be pushed toward extinction by the end of the century if current trends continue.

The loss would affect more than the trees themselves. Joshua trees provide important habitat for desert wildlife, including 25 bird species, rare insects such as the pallid blue dotted butterfly, and species including the desert tortoise. The Mojave ecosystem, though often perceived as barren, is highly interconnected, and the decline of Joshua trees could ripple across the landscape.

The potential economic consequences also are significant for communities near Joshua Tree National Park, where local businesses depend heavily on ecotourism and the park’s distinctive scenery.

Joshua trees have survived since the late Ice Age, when now-extinct giant ground sloths helped disperse their seeds. Today, conservationists say human decisions will play a major role in determining whether the species remains a fixture of the Mojave.

Environmental advocates have urged local governments, businesses and developers to treat Joshua tree protection as a priority when considering new projects. They also point to organizations such as the Mojave Desert Land Trust, which works to conserve desert habitat, as part of broader efforts to protect the region.

For many visitors, the appeal of Joshua Tree National Park lies not only in the unusual silhouettes of the trees, but in the larger desert ecosystem they help support. Without stronger protections and more careful planning, advocates warn, future generations may not have the same opportunity to experience them.

Original source: CalMatters

The post As Mojave Development Expands, Thousands of Joshua Trees Face Growing Threats appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

According to Politico, the five offshore wind projects paused by the Trump administration would be able to power nearly 2.7 million homes for up to 30 years using a free, non-polluting fuel: wind. Alternatively, to power those homes with fossil fuels would mean an unending cycle of digging up coal, oil or gas, transporting it, and burning it to generate electricity. In the process, we pollute our air — causing disease and death — and our atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon pollution, furthering global warming and climate change.

Fossil fuel interests have worked for years to discredit offshore wind projects. A 2023 investigation by Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab revealed that, in recent years, six major fossil fuel and dark money donors have funneled more than $72 million to the various organizations fighting offshore wind. The transition to a clean energy future will be significantly affected by the speed with which offshore wind projects are developed. Knowing this, fossil fuel interests will do all they can to slow it down.

Robert Taylor, Santa Barbara

..

To the editor: President Trump’s war against renewable energy sources is hurting Americans while lining the pockets of the oil industry. His latest suspension of major wind projects is keeping cheaper, cleaner and healthier energy sources away from our nation.

His administration has claimed this pause will enable them time to assess national security risks. But wouldn’t those have been assessed by administrations years ago? This looks like just another way of slowing down alternative energy production.

Not allowing all forms of competitive energy production risks our energy independence and thus creates a different national security issue. Electricity needs are growing and AI data centers are adding to this energy drain today.

Trump has proposed that some waters off the U.S. coastline be opened for offshore drilling. He knows our energy needs are growing and oil is his product of choice. But keep in mind that ocean wind farm energy, by most accounts, will lower our energy costs. The Los Angeles Times article on the offshore wind projects even said a partially completed wind project in New England saved residents “$2 million a day during a cold snap this month,” according to the Boston Globe. Additionally, wind farms are less destructive, posing less environmental damage than offshore drilling.

Tell your Congress member that you want cheap, clean energy sources to be allowed to move forward when the permitting process is already agreed upon. No administration should be allowed to interfere with our free markets in the middle of construction.

Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel

The post Letters to the Editor: In halting offshore wind projects, we hinder our own clean energy potential appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Southern California Edison — the utility that owns the decommissioned power line that may have started the fire — made a sweeping offer on Wednesday to pay families affected by the blaze hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation.

The Eaton fire ravaged Altadena, an idyllic foothill community northeast of downtown Los Angeles, killing 19 people, destroying thousands of homes and damaging thousands more. Although state fire investigators have not officially determined the cause, evidence suggests that the utility’s equipment played a key role.

The company on Wednesday launched its program to compensate victims for rebuilding costs, lost rental income, physical injuries and other economic damages. Altadena residents are also eligible for other payouts for “non-economic losses,” such as pain and suffering and emotional distress, depending on their circumstances. Each adult resident of a house that burned down, for instance, is eligible to receive $115,000 and each child is eligible for $75,000. A surviving spouse of someone who died in the fire is eligible for $2 million.

Survivors have until Nov. 30, 2026, to decide whether to take the utility up on its offer — and forfeit the right to sue — or to hold out for a legal settlement that could be larger but take years to be resolved.

It is a calculation that more Californians could face in the future, as climate change causes utility-sparked wildfires to burn hotter and more quickly out of control.

For each family, the equation is different.

“There have been a lot of people, like lawyers, who are like, ‘I’m going to help you take Edison for everything you can get, like, let’s drag them through the mud,’” said Lauren Randolph, 40, whose home was destroyed in the blaze. “But there’s just so many things to consider, once this is in its final form: Do we take this to get the money sooner? Or do we wait to try to get more? But how much more, in theory, would we actually get, and is that actually meaningful and worth it?”

Ms. Randolph and her husband bought their house in West Altadena in 2018, while she was pregnant with her older daughter, and they poured some $150,000 and countless hours into renovating it.

Then, on the evening of Jan. 7, they debated for hours whether to leave, although they hadn’t been ordered to evacuate.

They eventually went to Ms. Randolph’s mother’s house. When the couple returned, only their side gate was left standing. They only recognized it because they had painted it in rainbow colors for their daughter’s fifth birthday.

For months, whether to take the utility’s money has been a subject of conversation at coffee shops, in WhatsApp groups and among lawyers and their clients.

Southern California Edison leaders announced in July that they were planning a program to compensate wildfire survivors. They said they had enlisted the help of Kenneth R. Feinberg and Camille S. Biros, who were known for designing compensation programs for people directly affected by the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. This is, Ms. Biros said later, their first time working on a program for survivors of a wildfire.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s biggest utility, has paid out billions through similar settlements. A fund to compensate victims of wildfires sparked by its equipment, including the 2018 Camp fire, has paid out $13.7 billion so far, according to a website that tracks its progress.

No compensation fund has been set up for the January Palisades fire, which investigators have not linked to any utility.

In late September, Southern California Edison company hosted community meetings online and in Altadena to gather feedback on its plans. On a Monday night, fire survivors who had been scattered across the region packed into a park gymnasium to hear from company representatives and voice their concerns. Many older survivors brought their adult children or other relatives.

Under the plan, victims would be paid according to the level of damage their home had sustained: destroyed, partially destroyed or damaged by smoke. Survivors could pick from two options: A fast pay option, where they would receive an offer within 90 days of submitting their claim, but with a less detailed review, or a slower option, where they would have to wait for a deeper examination of their losses that could take up to nine months. A fast pay offer would not be reduced by insurance claims, but a detailed review offer would be offset by insurance coverage. Every offer for someone represented by a lawyer would include an extra 10 percent to help cover attorney’s fees.

Utility officials emphasized that the program was voluntary: Survivors could file claims and assess their offer, with no obligation to take it.

People attending the meeting peppered company representatives with questions, which were transcribed in marker on giant sheets of paper: What about a collection of sports memorabilia that was lost? Would West Altadena residents be paid more because of the lack of warning about the fire? What if family members disagreed about whether they wanted to accept the settlement or continue with a lawsuit? The company didn’t have immediate answers.

Some of the survivors said later that they were wary about giving too many details of their cases to the utility; their lawyers had warned them that any information they provided at the meetings could be used against them.

On Wednesday, Southern California Edison released the final details of the program and opened the claims process.

Pedro J. Pizarro, the president and chief executive of Southern California Edison’s parent company, Edison International, said that changes to the initial proposal had been made in response to feedback, including expanding the number of people who could apply for the program and eliminating some documentation requirements.

The total number of eligible parties, which includes households and businesses, is about 18,000, he said.

Company executives have said that the compensation program is not an admission of guilt, and they have not been held liable in court for the fire.

Nevertheless, Mr. Pizarro said that the company has recognized there is “concerning circumstantial evidence” that its equipment sparked the fire, and that “there isn’t another probable cause.” He has warned investors that the company is likely to face losses as a result. Already, the utility has been sued many times over the fire.

“Every month that goes by, you might have more displacement for people who have been impacted, more escalation in construction costs — it just keeps adding up for the victims, as well as for the company,” he said. “For most victims, a standardized program can lead to a fair outcome in very short order, and it really is about having a sense of urgency to get that cash flowing into the community.”

Still, some lawyers and advocates for survivors said that they saw the program as a disingenuous attempt by Southern California Edison to reduce its liability. They said the company would rather boost profits for its executives and shareholders than spend money to mitigate the risk of its equipment starting fires in the first place.

And the size of the compensation offers has signaled to some lawyers that the company knows it could be forced to pay much more in court.

“In almost every case, it’s pennies on the dollar of what we likely — though there’s not certainty — we’ll be able to recover otherwise,” said Kipp Mueller, a lawyer who is representing fire victims.

Angela Giacchetti, one of Mr. Mueller’s clients, initially believed her family had been lucky: Their house was one of few in their neighborhood that was left standing after the Eaton fire roared through.

But she said she quickly learned that dealing with smoke damage is its own nightmare. The roof of the house, built in the 1940s, needed to be replaced. Initial attempts to clean the house left behind a lingering stench. Ms. Giacchetti, 37, her husband and her now 18-month-old son have moved every few weeks or months, as insurance payments have slowed.

She said the cost of fixing her home has been multiple times what Southern California Edison would likely offer her through the program. And the fact that the non-economic damage payments for children were less than for adults was an insult, she said.

“It was like a second grief,” she said. “You could see the dollar amounts these corporations put on our health and well-being.”

Zella Knight, whose family left Mississippi for West Altadena in the Jim Crow era, when she was a young child, said she feared that no amount of compensation would preserve a once thriving Black community whose vulnerable elders were displaced by the fire. Many of those people, she said, may not be able to afford to wait for a possible larger payout down the line, unlike wealthier recent arrivals.

Ms. Knight, 62, said her intellectually disabled brother had continued living in their childhood home, after their parents died. The house was destroyed in the fire, disrupting his routines and care. He died in August. Now, she and her other siblings are deciding whether to sell the property.

“We have lost our extended family, we’ve lost our comfort zones, we’ve lost those mechanisms that build upon generational wealth,” she said. “Nothing can really compensate for that.”

But, she said, the settlements could be a start.

The post L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice: Take a Settlement or Hold Out for More appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The policy brief from UCR’s Inland Empire Labor and Community Center found rising global temperatures pose a particularly high risk for workers in several industries, especially for people of color.

“With projections for more frequent and intense heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and floods, the region’s workers are facing an unprecedented ‘cocktail’ of occupational hazards,” read the report released this month.

Climate change is the long-term shift in Earth’s temperatures and weather patterns. The planet is in the midst of global warming exacerbated by the use of fossil fuels, deforestation and other human activities that scientists warn will wipe out plant and animal species and make life unbearable for future generations.

For the Inland Empire, climate change makes normally hot summers even more sweltering, creating a double whammy for the public when combined with the region’s notoriously poor air quality.

That toxic air is blamed, at least in part, on diesel emissions from trucks serving the region’s massive logistics industry. And it’s warehouse workers who are especially endangered by climate change, according to the report.

“Warehouse workers in facilities without adequate air conditioning or ventilation are highly vulnerable to heat-related illnesses,” the report states. “They are also exposed to airborne pollutants from the high concentration of diesel vehicles in their work environment.”

Inland farmworkers, construction workers, emergency responders and those employed in transportation also are at high risk of harm from climate change and air pollution, the report added.

These sectors tend to employ higher numbers of people of color, according to the report. More than two-thirds of climate-vulnerable workers in San Bernardino County and roughly one-third of climate-vulnerable workers in Riverside County are Latino, the report read.

“Low-income and non-unionized workers are also highly vulnerable,” the report found.

“Many warehouse workers, for instance, work long hours, earn less than a living wage, and rely on public assistance benefits; they often lack the resources necessary to address health challenges.”

Besides causing heat stroke and other illnesses, high temperatures boosted by climate change can impair workers’ cognitive function and lead to more stress, anxiety, depression and irritability, the report read.

“The psychological toll can be substantial for workers experiencing prolonged heat exposure or climate-related job insecurity, negatively affecting both their mood and ability to make decisions,” according to the report.

About 21% of San Bernardino County workers and roughly 14% of Riverside County workers toil in climate-vulnerable jobs, per the report. Across the Inland Empire, about 18% of workers are in climate-vulnerable occupations, compared to roughly 16% for all of California.

California took steps in 2024 to lower indoor workplace temperatures. Rules passed by the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board set temperature thresholds that, if reached, would require employers to take steps to either lower inside temperatures or give workers heat relief.

Once the indoor temperature reaches 82 degrees, employers would have to give workers water and access to cooling areas. Fans or other cooling devices would have to be used once the temperature hits 87 degrees.

While California “is a national leader in worker protection,” the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, also known as Cal/OSHA, is understaffed and there’s a lack of follow-up to ensure employers are keeping workers cool, the report read.

Cal/OSHA did not respond to a request for comment.

“The current patchwork of state regulations, local initiatives, and advocacy efforts provides a foundation” to keep workers safe from climate change, the report concluded.

“But a more comprehensive, proactive, robust, and equitable policy approach is urgently needed to address the full spectrum of these challenges.”

The post Climate change is an on-the-job hazard for these Inland Empire workers, report says appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The release — which includes all of Southern California and marks the end of the agency’s two-month, statewide rollout — sets off a roughly five-month clock for L.A. city and county to receive public input, make adjustments, and begin enforcing heightened fire-safety regulations within the new zones.

The new Cal Fire maps are only for areas where local fire departments, like the Los Angeles Fire Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department, are responsible for responding to blazes. Previously, Cal Fire only mapped the highest severity rating, “very high,” for these local responsibility areas. The new maps include Cal Fire’s “moderate” and “high” zones as well.

New fire hazard zones for Los Angeles and Southern California

Local responsibility areas (proposed)

Cal Fire most recently updated all three zones for the areas where the state responds to fires in September 2023. However, the last time the agency updated its maps for areas where local fire departments are responsible was in 2011.

The city of L.A. saw its acreage in the “very high” zone increase by 7%. The addition of the new “moderate” and “high” zones led to the total acreage in the fire severity hazard zones increasing by 24%.

The unincorporated areas in L.A. County that rely on LACFD, however, saw their acreage in the “very high” zone more than triple. Much of the unincorporated areas — which make up over 65% of the county and include Altadena, the outskirts of Santa Clarita and Palmdale areas and Puente Hills near Whittier — are wildlands or exist at the wildland-urban interface, which are more prone to fire.

“Today’s release of updated hazard assessment maps from Cal Fire … underlines the ongoing wildfire crisis that California is experiencing,” Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) said in a statement. “We must act fast and at scale to protect our communities and make sure insurance markets work for everyone.”

With the rollout complete, California as a whole now has more “very high” hazard zone acres than ever before. Cal Fire mapped a grand total of 6.8 million acres into the local responsibility area hazard zones: “very high” zones grew 35%, from 860,000 acres to nearly 1.2 million; meanwhile, 1.2 million and 4.5 million acres were placed into the new “high” and “moderate” zones, respectively.

The hazard severity zone maps are referenced in more than 50 sections of California law. They require homeowners in “high” and “very high” hazard zones to follow fire-safe building codes for new construction — including installing multi-pane windows that are less likely to break in extreme heat and covering vents and other openings to prevent embers from entering the house. Homeowners in the “very high” zones must maintain defensible space around their properties and disclose the “very high” status when they put their houses up for sale

The legislature has also required local governments in heightened severity zones to routinely review evacuation routes and account for the potential peak stress on water supplies during a disaster. Local governments must also locate essential public facilities like hospitals and emergency command centers outside of heightened fire hazard zones “when feasible,” according to the law.

Cal Fire originally planned to release the maps in mid-January; however the L.A. firestorms that month forced the agency to delay as it moved significant scientific resources to supporting the firefight and relief efforts.

In the new maps, the Pacific Palisades and Malibu remain blanketed under a red “very high” zone, just as they did in Cal Fire’s old maps from 2011. Altadena, on the other hand, remains largely unzoned, indicating a hazard lower than “moderate,” just as it did in the old maps.

An analysis by The Times found that only 21% of the properties within the Eaton fire’s perimeter were designated as having “very high” fire hazard. Yet, an independent assessment by the public-benefit company First Street had identified 94% as having “severe” or “extreme” wildfire risk, meaning they had at least a 1 in 7 chance of experiencing wildfire in a 30-year window.

Cal Fire research manager David Sapsis, who oversees the agency’s mapping efforts, acknowledged that the models Cal Fire uses to create its maps cannot fully predict the dynamic spread of wildfire into urban areas. Cal Fire’s model instead accounts for the vegetation type, topology, climate and weather for wildland areas to calculate the probability of an area burning and the likely intensity of the blaze. From this, it calculates how far a blaze would likely spill over into urban areas.

The team also intentionally chose to leave out what it calls “outlier” events like the 2017 Tubbs fire, because, they said, it would have led to overly conservative zoning. Another outlier event: the Eaton fire, which, like the Tubbs fire, was driven by relentless, powerful winds that drove the blaze deep into a populated area.

First Street approaches it somewhat differently. The company creates a virtual representation of California that includes both vegetation and human infrastructure of the state’s urban areas, and simulates how fires would likely spread, including into areas like Altadena. If Cal Fire’s model is a snapshot of how fire acts, First Street’s is a motion picture.

Sapsis acknowledged he’d like to use newer approaches like First Street’s in the future. For its 2025 maps, Cal Fire made only slight modifications to its model, including the use of more up-to-date climate and extreme weather data. It also used a new model for estimating how far embers can bring fire into developed areas.

Other changes in the real world — such as new housing developments that changed an area’s classification from wildland to urban — also resulted in modifications to the Cal Fire maps.

In the latest release — comprising all of Southern California, including San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties — the cities of Hesperia and Jurupa Valley saw the most significant percentage increase in acres zoned, with the cities’ total averages in hazard zones increasing more than 35- and 45-fold, respectively. Jurupa Valley saw its “very high” zone expand from 226 acres to 6,195. Hesperia’s grew from 715 to 15,359.

The cities of Chino Hills, Lancaster and Santa Clarita saw significant increases in their “very high” zones; in all three cities, the zones grew by more than 13,000 acres.

The number of acres zoned as “very high” in San Diego decreased by nearly 30%; however, its total acreage in hazard zones still slightly increased thanks to the new “moderate” and “high” zones.

Only a handful of cities across the state saw decreases in the total acreage zoned, including Rancho Palos Verdes in L.A. County and Oakland in the Bay Area.

“I’ll be quite honest with you, before these maps were produced, I thought the very high fire severity zones were really going to reach deep deep down into Altadena, and they haven’t,” said LACFD Deputy Fire Chief Albert Yanagisawa. “I asked Cal Fire, seeing as what happened, is there a reason the maps were not changed, and what they said was, specifically, their model is for wildland fire modeling. It’s not utilized and it shouldn’t be utilized for [urban] conflagration modeling.”

Cal Fire has so far declined to comment on what drove changes in specific counties and cities.

Now, local jurisdictions have 120 days to accept public input on the maps and work with Cal Fire to issue an official ordinance implementing them. Typically, ordinances take effect about 30 days after they’re issued. At that point, the heightened fire safety regulations would apply to the new zones.

Local jurisdictions like L.A. city and county are allowed to increase the severity of a zone and add additional acres to a zone; however, they cannot decrease the severity of zones or remove acres from them.

These maps are a “critical tool for identifying high fire hazard areas and strengthening fire safety policies across our communities,” said County Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “For those working to rebuild after the Eaton fire, I want to emphasize that these maps provide essential information to guide your rebuilding efforts. They reflect the latest fire hazard assessments and will help ensure our homes and infrastructure are rebuilt with safety and resilience in mind.”

Fire safety advocates have attributed the continuing upward trend of acre zones to a litany of factors from development in fire-prone areas, ecosystem changes and climate change.

“Yes, climate change has obviously and absolutely impacted the severity of our wildfires and where they are happening, but way before there were climate impacts, there were land-use decisions,” said Howard Penn, executive director of the Planning and Conservation League, a California-based nonprofit. “We have been sprawling into the wildlands for the last 75-plus years with very little consideration of the impacts.”

The post New fire maps increase hazard zones in L.A. and Southern California by 3.5 million acres appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.