According to a report published by CalMatters reporters Yue Stella Yu and Kate Wolffe, representatives of the company bombarded county staff with emails, phone calls and texts in the final weeks of last year’s legislative session, trying to lock down support for a bill that would speed environmental review for a proposed shipyard tied to the project. Backers said the facility could bring thousands of jobs to Solano County.

The records show that on Sept. 1, 2025, Michael Fortney, California Forever’s director of partnerships, told county staff they needed a decision on the proposal that same day. When the county administrator pointed out there wasn’t even draft legislative language to review yet, Fortney pushed back, accusing the county of dragging its feet and asking, “We don’t understand why this is complicated for you… unless you don’t want these jobs in Solano?”

Fortney has defended the company’s urgency, saying the team worked around the clock because the shipyard represented an economic opportunity that “could have been transformative for the county, and for California.”

But critics say the episode fits a troubling pattern for a company that has drawn skepticism from the start over its secretive land purchases and outsized ambitions. Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm said the constant rush to secure approvals is unreasonable given the scale of what’s being proposed.

“For something of this size, it’s absurd to push in front of anybody and say, ‘We need your yes vote or your no vote right now,'” Kromm said. “You wouldn’t buy a used car with that kind of timeframe.”

The pressure campaign hasn’t let up. In recent weeks, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has begun circulating a new proposal that would fast-track environmental review for the shipyard project, signaling the debate over California Forever’s tactics is far from settled as the current legislative session winds down.

Elsewhere in California environmental news, the Trump administration’s push to loosen restrictions on logging and road-building in undeveloped stretches of national forest is drawing pushback from state leaders and conservation groups, who warn the move could actually increase wildfire risk rather than reduce it.

The Forest Service’s own data shows that wildfires are more likely to ignite in areas where people have vehicle access, according to reporting from CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns for The Wilderness Society, argued that opening up backcountry areas to more roads and development will only mean more potential ignition sources, not fewer.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has defended the proposed rule changes, calling the current restrictions “outdated” and arguing they lock up “tens of millions of forested acres” that could otherwise be treated to improve forest health and cut wildfire danger. The public has until Sept. 21 to weigh in on the proposal.

In the Bay Area, community advocates are sounding the alarm over changes to CalEnviroScreen, the state’s tool for identifying pollution-burdened communities, warning the update could strip vital funding from vulnerable San Francisco neighborhoods.

The screening tool ranks California communities across nearly two dozen environmental, health and demographic measures, and the worst-off quarter of the state qualifies as “disadvantaged,” a designation that unlocks a share of the state’s cap-and-invest revenue. But after the tool’s latest update, neighborhoods including Chinatown, the Tenderloin, SoMa and the Mission no longer rank high enough to qualify, despite what advocates say are persistent environmental and health burdens.

Pratibha Tekkey, director of community organizing for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, said the rankings fail to capture the reality on the ground. “You can’t just be a scientist looking at data points,” she said. “You have to see who is living there in that community, what kind of health challenges they have, what kind of economic challenges they have.”

And in San Diego, county supervisors voted 3-2 this week to bar federal immigration agencies from using county firearms training facilities. Board Chairperson Terra Lawson-Remer said allowing the county’s ranges to be used in support of the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts would be “a slap in the face of our residents.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Forever’s Lobbying Push Revealed in Newly Obtained Records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Californians who have grown used to ordering small-batch whiskey, gin and other craft spirits online and having them show up on their doorstep may soon have to find another way to stock their home bars.

A policy that has allowed the state’s craft distillers to ship directly to customers is set to expire at the end of the year, and a fierce, largely behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign is working to make sure it stays dead. The fight offers a telling glimpse into how deep-pocketed industry players can shape the fate of legislation in Sacramento.

The direct-shipping allowance traces back to the pandemic, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order letting distillers ship spirits straight to consumers as bars and tasting rooms shut down. Lawmakers have since renewed the temporary measure multiple times, with the latest extension due to lapse Dec. 31.

A Republican lawmaker representing the Sacramento region is pushing to make the shipping option permanent. But the effort faces stiff opposition from national alcohol distributors, the Teamsters union representing truck drivers, and California’s powerful wine industry — all of which have been lobbying quietly to keep the temporary rule from becoming law.

Opponents say they’re not out to crush small distillers, even as alcohol consumption continues to decline nationwide. Still, it’s difficult to ignore the financial muscle behind the opposition. While the exact amount spent specifically fighting this bill isn’t clear, these interests have poured at least $11 million into California political campaigns since 2000, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database — including at least $738,000 already this legislative session alone.

Some of Sacramento’s most influential lawmakers have received substantial contributions from groups opposing the shipping extension. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has taken in at least $108,000 over the years, and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón has received at least $33,000. Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio — who each chair committees overseeing alcohol regulation — have collected at least $65,000 and $129,000, respectively.

By comparison, California’s craft distillers reported spending just $53,000 on lobbying this year. Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of two distilleries in El Dorado Hills, said he’s already begun scaling back home deliveries in anticipation that the law will not survive.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” Steller said.

For local distillers throughout the Inland Empire and across Southern California who built pandemic-era direct-to-consumer business models, the coming change could mean rethinking how they reach loyal customers — many of whom came to rely on shipped bottles when tasting rooms were closed and have kept ordering ever since.

—

In other statewide news, the California Highway Patrol has lost a six-year battle to fire a Los Angeles-based officer caught up in an overtime fraud scandal that rocked the department’s East Los Angeles patrol division. Nathaniel Partridge was one of dozens of officers disciplined in 2020 after CHP discovered inflated overtime claims totaling more than $200,000. Felony charges brought against 54 officers largely fell apart in court, and a state appellate panel recently ruled that a one-year unpaid suspension — not termination — was the appropriate penalty for Partridge, finding no clear evidence he intended to deceive the department.

Meanwhile, health officials are warning that looming federal Medicaid cuts won’t just hurt low-income Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal — they’re likely to ripple outward and raise costs for people with private insurance as well. As many as 2.2 million Californians could lose coverage by 2030 under provisions in President Trump’s 2025 spending law. Because hospitals are required to treat anyone who arrives in an emergency room regardless of insurance status, uncompensated care costs are expected to balloon by as much as $2 billion to $4 billion annually, according to the California Hospital Association. More than 3,000 hospital workers statewide have already been laid off as facilities brace for the fallout, and some financially strained hospitals could be forced to close.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Pandemic-Era Liquor Delivery Law Set to Expire After Industry Lobbying Push appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For six years, Californians have been able to order a bottle of small-batch whiskey, gin or vodka online and have it delivered straight to their door. That convenience is set to disappear unless state lawmakers act before the legislative session ends this month — and distillers say that outcome looks increasingly unlikely.

The direct-shipping allowance dates back to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-era executive order, which let craft distillers — those producing up to 150,000 gallons annually — mail their products to customers when tasting rooms and retail shelves went dark. Lawmakers have extended the policy several times since, but the latest extension expires Dec. 31.

Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, tried this year to make the shipping allowance permanent by attaching it to one of his bills. He’s not optimistic it will survive.

“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” Hoover said.

Behind the scenes, a coalition of well-funded interests — including major alcohol wholesalers, the Wine Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — has spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state agencies this year, according to disclosure filings. Those same groups have donated at least $11 million to California lawmakers since 2000, including more than $738,000 since the start of the current two-year legislative session.

By contrast, the state’s craft distillers have spent only about $54,000 on lobbying this year and have made just a handful of political contributions over the past decade — including a $42 bottle of whiskey given to former state Sen. Bill Dodd in 2022.

“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills.

Hoover’s Assembly Bill 2211, which would let craft distillers hold tastings and sell spirits away from their distilleries, has moved through the Legislature without a single “no” vote. But Hoover’s effort to attach a permanent direct-shipping provision to the bill has stalled amid the quiet opposition.

Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said his union isn’t against letting small distillers ship their products — but insists deliveries should go through established carriers with actual employees, such as UPS, rather than independent contractors.

“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers,” Broad said, “but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public.”

Representatives for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors said in a joint statement that the shipping allowance “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief” and is “expiring exactly as designed.” They noted that consumers can still have spirits delivered through third-party services such as DoorDash.

Steve Gross, president and CEO of the Wine Institute, said his industry — which has shipped directly to California consumers for decades — isn’t necessarily opposed to distillers gaining the same right. But he argued it would be unfair to grant small distillers delivery privileges while larger spirits producers remain excluded.

“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to, because those larger distillers are not their members.”

With the Legislature set to adjourn Aug. 31, any changes to Hoover’s bill would likely need approval from top Democratic leaders, who have shown little sign of intervening. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who has received at least $108,000 from groups opposing the shipping extension, declined interview requests. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who has received at least $33,000 from the same interests, said in a statement that the bill “will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended.”

Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, both Democrats who chair committees overseeing California’s alcohol industry, also declined to add the shipping provision when Hoover’s bill passed through their panels. A spokesperson for Sen. Rubio said there is currently no formal proposal before the committee to extend the policy, adding that she has supported previous extensions.

For distillers like Steller, the uncertainty is already affecting business decisions. He said he’s begun scaling back on shipments to customers rather than invest further in a program that appears headed for extinction.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.

The dispute underscores how, in Sacramento, deep-pocketed industries can quietly reshape or kill legislation through private negotiations — leaving small businesses like California’s craft distilleries with little leverage against organized opposition.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Big Lobbying Dollars Could End California’s Craft Liquor Delivery Services appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The five-member board, which hears appeals involving hazardous waste facilities permitted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, was established in 2021 to add a layer of oversight and give communities burdened by industrial pollution a stronger voice in state decision-making.

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Williams to the board in January, shortly after he stepped down as the governor’s deputy chief of staff. In a letter sent to Williams, and shared with the board and the department, a coalition of environmental groups raised alarms over his subsequent work for Axiom Advisors, a Sacramento lobbying firm whose client roster includes Clean Harbors, which operates a major hazardous waste facility, and GKN Aerospace, the company responsible for a chemical release that forced thousands of Orange County residents to evacuate in May.

Williams did not respond to requests for comment from CalMatters, and he did not address the letter during the board’s meeting Thursday. He has not been accused of breaking any law, and legal experts note his appointment fell within the bounds of what’s permitted.

The governor’s office defended the appointment, saying Williams underwent a thorough vetting process and that his lobbying work does not present a conflict because he does not represent clients with active matters before the board. Williams has also committed to recusing himself from any votes involving Axiom’s clients.

“Rhys Williams is an exceptionally qualified public servant with years of experience helping California navigate some of its most complex infrastructure, emergency management, and environmental challenges,” said Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez. “His appointment reflects his deep subject matter expertise, professionalism, and longstanding commitment to public service.”

But advocates argue that the appearance of divided loyalties alone is enough to undermine confidence in the board’s independence.

“They were alarmed by just the audacity of appointing somebody who is or has been tied to the toxic waste industry,” said Bradley Angel, executive director of Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. “It does not bode well for impartiality or for upholding the stated mission of the Board of Environmental Safety, which is to protect the public from toxics and promote environmental safety, not promote polluter profits.”

Questions of impartiality

Records from Williams’ LinkedIn profile and lobbying disclosures filed with the California Secretary of State show that Axiom Advisors brought him on in May, roughly four months after he joined the state board. The firm publicly announced his hiring the following month, touting his government connections as a selling point for clients. “This appointment brings something very important to Axiom’s clients,” the announcement read. “Rhys’ extensive experience with the agencies that can move projects forward is invaluable to companies looking to do business here.”

Axiom’s client list includes GKN Aerospace, which uses the hazardous chemical methyl methacrylate to manufacture aircraft components such as cockpit canopies and passenger windows; Clean Harbors, which runs one of only two hazardous waste landfills in the state; and the California Building Industry Association, a trade group representing homebuilders and developers.

According to a source familiar with the discussions, Williams has attended meetings in his capacity as an Axiom lobbyist between GKN representatives and staff for state Sen. Tom Umberg, an Orange County Democrat pushing legislation to hold the company accountable and provide relief to affected residents. The toxic substances department does not directly regulate GKN as an aerospace manufacturer, though it could have jurisdiction if the company handles or transports hazardous waste.

Williams’ career in Sacramento dates back more than a decade. He joined Newsom’s staff in 2014 as chief of staff during Newsom’s time as lieutenant governor, later advising him on infrastructure and emergency preparedness issues throughout his governorship.

Before leaving for the board post, Williams earned close to $200,000 annually as deputy chief of staff. His new part-time position pays $93,135. Newsom has since also named him to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, a role that comes with a $100 daily stipend. Asked in January about Williams’ departure from the governor’s office, spokesperson Izzy Gardon said the longtime aide had “earned his freedom” after more than ten years of service.

A board under scrutiny

Williams stepped into a board still working to shed criticism over how it has handled oversight of polluting facilities in its first five years of existence. In the coming months, the board is expected to weigh in on several contested permits tied to some of California’s largest hazardous waste operations.

The board’s formation followed years of frustration from residents and advocacy groups who said the Department of Toxic Substances Control routinely dragged its feet on permitting decisions and failed to shield vulnerable communities from pollution.

Chief among the incidents that spurred reform was the decades-long Exide lead battery contamination case in Los Angeles. Regulators eventually determined the Vernon-based battery recycler had been releasing lead and arsenic into the soil near thousands of homes for years, all while operating under nothing more than a temporary permit for more than three decades. State inspectors documented over 100 violations at the site yet allowed the plant to keep running.

In 2015, following an earlier bankruptcy filing, Exide agreed to shutter the plant for good and contribute $50 million toward the cleanup. When the company filed for bankruptcy a second time in 2020, a federal judge signed off on a settlement letting Exide walk away from the property entirely, over state objections, leaving California to shoulder the ongoing cleanup costs.

Critics say the pattern of delayed permitting and lax enforcement hasn’t gone away. Clean Harbors operated for two decades on an expired permit before the department finally issued a renewal last month. Phibro-Tech, a hazardous waste treatment and recycling facility in Santa Fe Springs, ran on a permit that lapsed in 1996 for nearly 30 years before receiving a new one in 2025; the board is set to rule on appeals tied to that permit in October. And Ecobat Resources, the only lead battery recycler west of the Rockies, operated for a decade on an expired permit before getting a renewal last year, with related appeals scheduled for board review in January.

Neither Phibro-Tech nor Ecobat are Axiom clients.

“The BES was supposed to be our firewall to safeguard communities,” said Matt Holmes, co-coordinator with the California Environmental Justice Coalition. While he credited the board with improving communication with affected communities, he said it has fallen short of its core mission. “We’ve been disappointed that the (board) really hasn’t been the firewall for toxic communities to get equal treatment from the state,” Holmes said, adding that the letter demanding Williams’ resignation was meant to clarify expectations for the board going forward.

What the law allows

Legal experts say there’s nothing inherently illegal or unusual about state board members holding outside jobs as lobbyists — the issue arises only if they end up advocating for companies whose matters they’re later asked to rule on. There’s no indication Williams has crossed that line: GKN Aerospace does not hold any hazardous waste permits regulated by the department, and it’s unclear whether he has direct ties to Clean Harbors or any other Axiom client that has drawn scrutiny.

Even so, USC government ethics professor Frank Zerunyan said Williams’ situation could raise concerns under broader common-law conflict-of-interest principles. “The fact that this person lobbies for a particular interest, does that make the people of California, which relies presumably on this person to be an objective commissioner or a board member for the purpose for which he is appointed, less trusting of California, or less trusting of that organization?” Zerunyan said. “That is the question.”

Environmental groups say the answer doesn’t hinge on whether Williams ever actually casts a vote involving an Axiom client. In their letter, they wrote that his ongoing association with the firm alone invites doubt: “For the duration of your tenure with the Board, the public may question whether your statements and activities (or lack thereof) could be consciously or subconsciously influenced by the interest of current Axiom clients, as well as the interests of potential clients Axiom may hope to attract.”

A pattern of political appointments

Williams is among more than a dozen former Newsom staffers and political allies the governor has placed in paid or unpaid roles across California’s many boards and commissions. Such appointments are a long-standing tradition in Sacramento, particularly as governors near the end of their terms, offering soft landings for aides leaving full-time government service while allowing the governor to retain influence over policy decisions.

“It is a time-honored tradition for California governors to appoint high-ranking staff to plum positions as a ‘reward’ for working in high-pressure, 24-7 jobs in the administration,” said Sacramento political consultant Steve Maviglio, who received a similar appointment to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in 2003 under then-Gov. Gray Davis. Maviglio, who served as Davis’ press secretary, said it’s reasonable for governors to reward staffers who are “loyal and battle-tested,” though he acknowledged that “sometimes appointments are made for the sake of qualifying for pension benefits.” Davis’ successor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, once pledged to shake up the state’s boards and commissions — only to later fill several of them with his own former staffers.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s Appointee to State Board Draws Conflict-of-Interest Concerns from Environmental Groups appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.