Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Revealed: the rural Californians who can’t sell their businesses – because LA is their landlord

News Feed
Wednesday, May 29, 2024

This article is reported by AfroLA and co-published by AfroLA, Guardian US and the Mammoth Sheet. It’s the first of several stories examining the impact of Los Angeles’s extensive landownership in the Owens Valley.A red horse statue perched on a 12ft pole greets drivers coming to the town of Bishop from the south. It’s one of the first landmarks here, part of Mike Allen’s corrugated metal feed store – a local institution that sells camping gear, livestock feed and moving equipment in this expansive region of inland California.But Allen desperately wants to sell it so he can retire.“I own the building, the inventory, and the asphalt for the parking lot,” Allen said. “But I don’t own the land under it.”And so Allen can’t get rid of it.The land under Allen’s store belongs to an owner 300 miles away: the city of Los Angeles, specifically its department of water and power (DWP).LA has owned large swathes of the Owens valley, where Bishop is located, for more than a century. The city first swooped in in the early 1900s, at the dawn of California’s water wars. As the metropolis grew at breakneck speed, its leaders searched for ways to sustain that population, and when they entered the Owens valley, they found what LA lacked: plenty of water.The Owens River before aqueduct before 1968. Photograph: Library of CongressOver the next decades, LA agents secretly, and aggressively, worked to buy up Owens valley land and take ownership of the water rights that came with those parcels. By 1933, DWP had gobbled up the large majority of all properties in the towns of Bishop, Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine.Today, DWP owns 90% of privately available land in Inyo county, which encompasses the Owens valley, and 30% of all the land in neighboring Mono county. Aqueducts transporting water from both counties provided 395,000 acre-feet of water to LA last year – about 73% of the city’s water supply.Stories of LA’s brazen land grab in the Owens valley have been told for decades – it was loosely depicted in the 1974 film Chinatown. And the fierce legal battles that have ensued, including over the environmental impact, have made regional headlines for years.But residents, business owners, and some municipal leaders in this rural region say LA’s landownership in the valley has taken on a new, and crippling, dimension in recent years.DWP has taken steps to exert even greater control over its land holdings in the valley. An AfroLA review of hundreds of documents obtained through records requests, as well as interviews with municipal officials, residents, legal experts and business owners, reveals DWP started changing the terms of leases in 2015, and formally added restrictions on the transfer of leases from one owner to the next in 2016.DWP’s moves have meant that hundreds of families who have built lives in the Eastern Sierra region have seen their plans upended, often being left with the stark choice of abandoning their livelihoods or fighting DWP.For Allen, the owner of the feed store, the 2016 changes mean that he can’t retire to Montana, where his wife moved seven years ago.Selling the store had always been Allen’s retirement plan. But since the new owner will not be able to transfer their lease or sell the business to recoup their investment, he hasn’t found a buyer. Meanwhile, his own lease has gone into holdover status: he continues to pay his rent and abides by the terms of his lease, but he can be evicted at will with 30 days’ notice.Leases lapsing into holdover status have long been an issue, but between 2015 and 2023, more leases have gone into holdover than did before.Allen now faces a brutal choice: continue to make month-to-month payments on an inactive lease, or surrender the building to DWP and abandon his business. If he lets the lease go back to DWP, he has to liquidate all of his inventory and demolish all of the improvements he has invested in over the years – including the asphalt in the parking lot and the building itself. That’s just a standard clause in DWP leases.Since DWP implemented the changes, at least 13% of leases in Inyo county have reverted back to DWP control, an analysis of property tax records reveals.Los Angeles is not alone in importing water from hundreds of miles away. San Francisco obtains most of its water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir and water system in Yosemite, and the California state water project gets most of its water from rural areas in northern California. LA’s also not the only city that secures its water supply through land holdings – New York City has similar landlord-tenant relationships. But DWP in the Owens valley is the “poster child” for negatively impacting the broader local economy, according to Greg James, special counsel for Inyo county.An irrigation ditch feeds into Bishop Creek in north-west Bishop. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLAAs water becomes increasingly scarce in a more extreme climate, urban communities like Los Angeles will increasingly need to rely on imported water, obtained at the expense of the environment and economies of rural and Indigenous communities. Los Angeles claims to be working toward diversifying its water portfolio through stormwater capture, recycled water and conservation as well as importing water from the Colorado River basin and northern California. But even after conservation efforts, LA projects it will still need to get about 30% of its water from the Owens valley by 2045, meaning the city and the valley are locked in a relationship for the foreseeable future.Los Angeles DWP did not respond to a detailed request for comment from AfroLA. DWP’s Eastern Sierra division also did not respond to a request for comment.The Land of Flowing WaterInyo county is a land of extremes. The region is larger than the state of Vermont but fewer than 20,000 people call it home. In its west, the peaks of the Eastern Sierra tower 10,000ft above the Owens valley. In its south lie the desert landscapes of Death valley. Brave hikers can trek from Mt Whitney, the highest point in the continental US, to Badwater Basin in Death valley, the lowest point.During winter, the Owens valley ground is parched. But come spring, when snowmelt runs from the Sierra and White Mountains down to the Owens River, the valley turns lush green. The Paiute, who have lived in the valley for thousands of years, named it Payahuunadü, the Land of Flowing Water.The White Mountains peek through rain and snow pouring over the Paiute’s sacred Volcanic Tablelands, the northernmost edge of the Owens valley. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLAWilliam Mulholland, LA’s famed water and infrastructure czar, realized the valley’s potential when he camped in the area in 1904. LA agents soon went on a buying spree, locking in land and water holdings.In the late 30s, the city briefly authorized the sale of about half of Bishop’s properties back into private ownership, but by the mid-40s, DWP had stopped that practice. Between 1967 and today, DWP added 10,000 more acres in the valley to its holdings.Today, LA owns 252,000 of the county’s 6.5m acres. The federal government, which owns the land in Death Valley national park and Inyo national forest, holds much of the rest.DWP’s extensive holdings make it the de facto landlord for many of Inyo county’s residents. DWP leases the majority of the region back to those living there – to the county government, to ranchers, to veterinarians and retailers, to families who have lived here for generations and people compelled to move in because of its stunning outdoors.Living here had long been affordable, too. LA’s leases were inexpensive, and for decades, the lease process was simple and straightforward, valley residents said. Much like the way many mobile home parks operate, property owners own the structures of their homes and businesses, but not the land underneath. DWP leases them that land through agreements with fixed terms, at fixed rates. Lease holders pay either month-to-month or yearly. When a lessee previously sold their home or business, the lease for the property transferred to the new owner after a credit score check, lease holders recalled. Lease transfers were hardly ever rejected, they said.That changed in 2016. That year, DWP ruled the way it had been treating leases conflicted with the 1924 Los Angeles city charter, which outlaws the sale or lease of city property except at public auction. From then on, DWP has only allowed leases to be transferred once. That meant an existing tenant could pass on their lease, but the new tenant could not, and instead would have to let the land revert back to LA control.If leases go out to bid, DWP auctions the lease off to the highest bidder. Under the old system, the lessee was able to profit directly from the sale of their business. Now, DWP reaps the financial benefits of the auction.DWP retroactively applied this policy to leases established before 2016. For lessees like Mike Allen, who have leased for decades, it has devalued their businesses and made them difficult to sell, because a new owner has no guarantee of recouping their costs.The department carved out an exemption for families, allowing leases to transfer within a family an unlimited number of times.“For 100 years they’ve never cared,” said Mark Lacey, a Lone Pine resident and rancher who sits on the Owens Valley Committee, a non-profit that helped negotiate environmental mitigations in a water agreement between LA and the county. “Now all of a sudden, you know, somebody decided, ‘Well, we’re going to actually follow the letter of the law based on the LA city charter that says, you know, we can’t do this. We have to put [leases] out to bid.’”Many lessees often only learned of the changes when they went to renew their leases, or tried to transfer them.Tom Talbot was the valley’s veterinarian for more than 45 years. Talbot owned Bishop veterinary hospital, a yellow cottage on the north side of Bishop near the intersection of Route 395 and Route 6. It’s the only full-service vet practice for hundreds of miles in every direction.In 2015, Talbot wanted to retire from medicine while still healthy enough to ranch full-time. But when he went to sell the hospital and transfer his lease, he said, he found completely rewritten rules.Bishop veterinary hospital on the north side of Bishop, the only full-service vet practice for hundreds of miles in every direction. Photograph: AfroLA/HandoutTalbot had hoped his son-in-law Tyler Ludwick, and Nicole Milici, who had volunteered working at the clinic since she was a teenager, would jointly take over the business.But the new transfer policy meant Milici could not be put on the lease. As a relative, Ludwick could. “We’re 50% partners in the business,” said Ludwick. “But it’s all me on the lease.”The lease structure forced Ludwick to take on more risk, he said in an interview, leaving him at the mercy of changes to his lease terms. But it was just the start of the veterinarians’ problems.“It’s just a giant handcuff that completely stymies any possibility of growth, equity, business advancement, because you don’t have anything real to sell,” Ludwick said.Ludwick’s lease has been expired for years, and DWP hasn’t renewed it. Without a lease active for the long run, it’s been hard to secure funds for repairs and improvements, he said.The yellow and brick building that houses the clinic is 60 years old and “rotting out from under us”, said Ludwick.After Talbot transferred his lease to Ludwick, lease policies changed again. Starting in 2016, the family transfer policy was limited to transfers between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and between spouses. As Talbot’s son-in-law, Ludwick would never have been able to take over the lease.Ludwick and Milici recently purchased an out-of-business Ford dealership on some rare non-DWP-owned private land. They built a brand new veterinary hospital on the land and they plan to use their current lease to provide specialty care, such as physical therapy.“The good news is we got something that is ours,” said Ludwick. “It gives us freedom.”The snow-capped White Mountains rise behind Line Street in downtown Bishop. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLAReagan Slee, owner of a sporting goods store, went through a different set of disappointments.In 2019, DWP changed its stance on selling properties to lessees. The new policy allows some business owners the chance to purchase the land they are leasing. Slee’s store, filled with hunting and fishing gear, was at the top of that list.Appraisers appraised, surveyors surveyed, and more than a year later Slee had a purchase agreement with the city of LA. That’s where progress stopped.“The price was fair,” Slee said. He put money in the bank, then waited. More than 18 months have passed since Slee signed his purchase agreement.“There was some excitement a year or two ago where we thought, ‘OK, this is finally going to happen,’” Slee said. “But now, I would be surprised if they called and said, ‘Hey, we’re ready to move forward.’”Slee’s lease expired in 2017, so he, too, is in holdover status. It would take more than a year to draft a new lease in order to sell his business, he said.Meanwhile, Slee struggles to upgrade or perform maintenance on his store. “You’re invested in something that is unknown, that is not yours and then there is no date attached to it. The value of the business is worth almost nothing, because if I was to go sell, it can’t be transferred.”According to Slee, DWP could keep the lease in holdover for 15 years, or it could pull the plug tomorrow. DWP did not respond to questions about Slee’s case.Since the transfer policies went into effect nearly a decade ago, approximately 20 leases have changed hands, according to AfroLA’s review of tax assessor data.Meanwhile, at least 49 of DWP’s 354 leases and use permits in Inyo county have been removed from circulation and not put back out to bid. Use permits, which function similarly to leases, are “agreements for private use”, according to the aqueduct operations plan. These include people’s backyards, pasture for horses and other uses.Tamara Cohen, a former Inyo county public health officer who served for 23 years, saw the use permit for her backyard return to DWP control. For years, she lived on a multi-home lot with two business partners, Kenney Scruggs and Benett Kessler, and a shared 1.3-acre backyard. The homes and the land underneath them were in a trust, with Scruggs’s name on the use permit. When Scruggs died, the DWP agreement passed to Kessler. And when Kessler passed away, Cohen was ready to take it over in turn. Instead, a DWP real estate officer paid her a visit, and told her to vacate the yard within 60 days.The rules had changed since 2013, when Kessler, an investigative reporter who spent her career monitoring DWP, took over the agreement, Cohen recalled the agent saying. Because the agreement was held in a trust, the agent said, it was taken out of circulation and would need to go to auction instead of being transferred.The agent didn’t seem happy about the prospect of an auction either, Cohen recalled: “[He] was pretty clear with us that going for the bid process was just really a hassle for him to do,” said Cohen. “He said they are trying to get rid of these kinds of [backyard] leases.”Cohen was later given until the end of the original agreement, an additional 18 months, to clear out and vacate the land. This included ripping out a patio and Scruggs’ garden. Now there is nothing but dirt and locust trees. Last spring, Cohen spent $7,000 to remove the dead vegetation on DWP’s property in order to prevent flooding and fires.“It’s disconcerting. The trees have come down on what used to be leased land and it’s scary – it’s such a fuel for fires,” Cohen said, pointing to the dead locust trees that line the creek behind her home. “That used to be a lease that was maintained, and now it’s not. It’s a fire risk.”The cost of droughtThe circumstances LA found itself in when it applied the lease changes were similar to the ones it faced when it arrived in the Owens valley more than a century ago: it was desperate for water.If LA’s 200,000 residents were thirsty in 1904, today, the city has a daunting task of servicing 3.8 million people living in an ever-warming climate. Much of the south-west US has faced crippling drought conditions at various points in past decades, with states and cities competing for few resources.DWP has also seen its operations in the Eastern Sierra curtailed. The origins of a trio of lawsuits settled between the late 80s and the early aughts are long and complicated. But the outcome of the suits, initiated over rules on environmental protections, legally requires DWP to leave hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water in Inyo and Mono counties for the towns; people, including Indigenous nations; and wildlife of the region.Tom Talbot’s cattle are rounded up for vaccinations at his ranch in Round valley last year. Photograph: Katie Licari/AfroLAThe drought lasting from 2011 to 2016 marked the driest years ever recorded in California. In 2014, internal DWP documents show, department staff recognized it needed to make changes to “prevent waste of water” in some of its most important leases: those of Inyo county’s ranchers.The majority of acres leased by DWP in the Eastern Sierra are to ranchers, who graze their herds in the shadows of rugged Sierra Nevada mountains.Ranchers and DWP have a “symbiotic relationship”, said Scott Kemp, whose family ranches more than 1,000 cattle on department land, one of the largest herds in the valley. “We take care of the land … People from Los Angeles can come up here and fish, and do what they do.”A 2006 internal agency document describes the relationship as such: “The ranch lessees serve as stewards of the land and monitor and manage their leases consistent with LADWP’s goal of providing a reliable high quality water supply to Los Angeles. With the ranch leases providing this function, LADWP is able to concentrate its personnel on maintaining and operating water conveyances.”In 2014, amid the drought, DWP proposed to the ranchers to change their lease terms to limit the amount of irrigation water they receive as part of their leases in years of normal water supplies. The department also proposed to allow DWP to provide water at its sole discretion in years with low snowmelt from the mountains, and place restrictions on water for cattle to drink.Inyo county’s water department responded that those changes could violate the 1991 water agreement between the county and DWP.The proposed lease changes led to conversations between DWP and the trade group representing the ranchers. Both parties agreed on restrictions for how water, particularly for cattle to drink, would be used. They also agreed that ranch lessees from then on could only transfer their lease once. They agreed that DWP would keep the proceeds from leases that would be auctioned off instead of transferred.A year later, DWP attempted to cut water off from the ranch lessees a second time. In a 27 April 2015 letter, DWP informed ranch lessees it would cut off their water supply in three days. According to a letter dated two days later, “plainly stated, there is insufficient water to meet all water users’ needs”. Concerned community members and the county met with DWP. The solution? Diverting some water destined for Owens Lake, which helped keep toxic dust from the dry lakebed out of the air, to irrigation water for ranchers.Even though the transfer limits originated with the ranchers, the department applied the policy broadly. On 15 November 2016, commercial lessees and Inyo county supervisors grilled the aqueduct manager about the lease changes during a board meeting.The county supervisor Jeff Griffiths told the then DWP aqueduct manager he hoped he and the city understood the repercussions of imposing the lease-transfer restrictions the ranchers had agreed to on commercial lessees as well. “This could be the largest economic impact to the community since LA’s original acquiring of Owens valley land,” said Griffiths.Supervisor Jeff Griffiths on the steps of the Bishop Civic Center. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLAA DWP memo on the origin of the one-time assignment policy that was included in emails between DWP real estate staff and the then board president, Mel Levine, in 2016 only addresses ranch leases, and explains the changes were designed to bring the lease transfer process into compliance with the Los Angeles city charter and state law protecting DWP lessees in Inyo county.But reporting by AfroLA shows the one-time assignment policy and the family transfer policy are being applied to commercial leases and use permits, such as Cohen’s backyard.The restrictions that have been imposed on how much water LA can pull out of Inyo county, either through negotiations with the county or the courts, have been extremely costly for the city.Internal DWP documents indicate that DWP has spent $30m-$40m annually buying water from southern California’s metropolitan water district to offset the water it now leaves in Inyo for the ranchers. The water DWP has been required to provide to Indigenous communities, for environmental mitigation and for agriculture since the water agreements costs the agency at least $124m annually, according to an internal briefing book.A way of lifeThough long constructive, the relationship between DWP and some ranchers has been strained by years of drought and lease changes.“DWP is nice to us in the wet years,” said Talbot, the former veterinarian, whose ranch is located in the picturesque Round valley just north of Bishop.In years water is plentiful, the department releases more water and provides flood control measures, Talbot said. But in dry years, DWP limits the ranchers’ water allocation to the minimum it is legally required to provide, he said.Many Inyo county ranchers have been affected by severe cuts DWP has made to water allocations in Mono county, which doesn’t have the same legal protections as Inyo county.Mark Lacey said he had to look for pasture land as far away as Oregon and Nebraska when DWP cut water to Mono county in 2015.“I got transportation costs going up and then coming back. And then I had to pay for that pasture while I was there, as well as everything I have from DWP,” he recalled. “The transportation costs were horrendous.”“After 2016, I couldn’t afford to do what I did. The price of cattle just didn’t allow me to make those moves,” he said. “Freight was too high. Pasture elsewhere either wasn’t available, or it was poor, [the price] was too high.”Lacey has seen every drought in the Owens valley since the 70s. He said the 2011-16 drought was not as bad as the 1980s drought, but the impacts were more acute because of the water shutoffs.For some in the county, the changes to the leases do not outweigh the benefits of LA’s land ownership. The county supervisor Jen Roeser said the agency’s presence in Inyo has been critical to maintaining the rural lifestyle residents enjoy.Roeser lives in a mobile home on a DWP lease she’s had for decades. “It’s our whole lifestyle. And our purpose in life that we felt we were given was to operate a quality business in the mountains,” she said, one of her dogs napping in the shade of the black locust trees.Roeser and her husband recently retired from running a mule packing business, which serves tourists hiking deep into the Sierra backcountry and also serves as one of the only ways to fight fires high up in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Bishop’s home to a week-long mule rodeo, and Roeser is a mule rodeo champion.Supervisor Jen Roeser leads a mule packing team at Bishop’s 2023 Mule Days, Inyo county’s biggest tourist event, held each Memorial Day weekend. Photograph: Katie Licari/AfroLA“[We’ve] introduced families and tourists to amazing experiences that impacted their lives and gave them memories that last generations, and we hear from hundreds of people every year that have memories that are still with them from pack trips. And these leases make that possible,” said Roeser.On the other side of the Sierra, Roeser explained, the lease rates of winter pasture land have grown increasingly expensive. DWP land, she said, is higher quality than alternatives.DWP, she added, also stimulates local economies as the county’s largest employer. It provides well-paying jobs – employing engineers and scientists and staff maintaining its infrastructure – with good benefits for local residents, including multigenerational families who live in the county but work for the city of Los Angeles, she said. DWP’s payroll in the Owens valley was approximately $60m.As Los Angeles takes steps to diversify its water sources, the Eastern Sierra region will still make up a critical supply of the city’s water needs. For the Owens valley, that means a continuation of good jobs, but also the continued presence of a landlord 300 miles away making decisions about its residents’ livelihoods. While decisions, often behind closed doors, are made, lessees like Slee and Allen wait.CreditsThis investigation was supported with funding from the Data-Driven Reporting Project, which is funded by the Google News Initiative in partnership with Northwestern University | Medill.The stories are the result of more than two years of records requests, interviews and data analysis by AfroLA. Guardian US provided assistance as a co-publishing partner in the editing, production and promotion of this story. Collaboration and co-publication with the Mammoth Sheet helped ensure that Owens valley residents have ready access to news that directly affects their lives and communities. Thank you to the many people who made reporting and sharing this story possible.For AfroLAJustin Allen, technology managerDana Amihere, editorJennings Hanna, interaction designerAlexandra Kanik, web developerKatie Licari, reporterStu Patterson, copy editorAlex Tatusian, visual designerFor Guardian USMatthew Cantor, copy editorWill Craft, data editorEline Gordts, editorThalia Juarez, photo editorAndrew Witherspoon, data editor

Los Angeles has long owned large swathes of the Owens valley. An investigation reveals how the city has tightened its gripThis article is reported by AfroLA and co-published by AfroLA, Guardian US and the Mammoth Sheet. It’s the first of several stories examining the impact of Los Angeles’s extensive landownership in the Owens Valley.A red horse statue perched on a 12ft pole greets drivers coming to the town of Bishop from the south. It’s one of the first landmarks here, part of Mike Allen’s corrugated metal feed store – a local institution that sells camping gear, livestock feed and moving equipment in this expansive region of inland California. Continue reading...

This article is reported by AfroLA and co-published by AfroLA, Guardian US and the Mammoth Sheet. It’s the first of several stories examining the impact of Los Angeles’s extensive landownership in the Owens Valley.

A red horse statue perched on a 12ft pole greets drivers coming to the town of Bishop from the south. It’s one of the first landmarks here, part of Mike Allen’s corrugated metal feed store – a local institution that sells camping gear, livestock feed and moving equipment in this expansive region of inland California.

But Allen desperately wants to sell it so he can retire.

“I own the building, the inventory, and the asphalt for the parking lot,” Allen said. “But I don’t own the land under it.”

And so Allen can’t get rid of it.

The land under Allen’s store belongs to an owner 300 miles away: the city of Los Angeles, specifically its department of water and power (DWP).

LA has owned large swathes of the Owens valley, where Bishop is located, for more than a century. The city first swooped in in the early 1900s, at the dawn of California’s water wars. As the metropolis grew at breakneck speed, its leaders searched for ways to sustain that population, and when they entered the Owens valley, they found what LA lacked: plenty of water.

The Owens River before aqueduct before 1968. Photograph: Library of Congress

Over the next decades, LA agents secretly, and aggressively, worked to buy up Owens valley land and take ownership of the water rights that came with those parcels. By 1933, DWP had gobbled up the large majority of all properties in the towns of Bishop, Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine.

Today, DWP owns 90% of privately available land in Inyo county, which encompasses the Owens valley, and 30% of all the land in neighboring Mono county. Aqueducts transporting water from both counties provided 395,000 acre-feet of water to LA last year – about 73% of the city’s water supply.

Stories of LA’s brazen land grab in the Owens valley have been told for decades – it was loosely depicted in the 1974 film Chinatown. And the fierce legal battles that have ensued, including over the environmental impact, have made regional headlines for years.

But residents, business owners, and some municipal leaders in this rural region say LA’s landownership in the valley has taken on a new, and crippling, dimension in recent years.

DWP has taken steps to exert even greater control over its land holdings in the valley. An AfroLA review of hundreds of documents obtained through records requests, as well as interviews with municipal officials, residents, legal experts and business owners, reveals DWP started changing the terms of leases in 2015, and formally added restrictions on the transfer of leases from one owner to the next in 2016.

DWP’s moves have meant that hundreds of families who have built lives in the Eastern Sierra region have seen their plans upended, often being left with the stark choice of abandoning their livelihoods or fighting DWP.

For Allen, the owner of the feed store, the 2016 changes mean that he can’t retire to Montana, where his wife moved seven years ago.

Selling the store had always been Allen’s retirement plan. But since the new owner will not be able to transfer their lease or sell the business to recoup their investment, he hasn’t found a buyer. Meanwhile, his own lease has gone into holdover status: he continues to pay his rent and abides by the terms of his lease, but he can be evicted at will with 30 days’ notice.

Leases lapsing into holdover status have long been an issue, but between 2015 and 2023, more leases have gone into holdover than did before.

Allen now faces a brutal choice: continue to make month-to-month payments on an inactive lease, or surrender the building to DWP and abandon his business. If he lets the lease go back to DWP, he has to liquidate all of his inventory and demolish all of the improvements he has invested in over the years – including the asphalt in the parking lot and the building itself. That’s just a standard clause in DWP leases.

Since DWP implemented the changes, at least 13% of leases in Inyo county have reverted back to DWP control, an analysis of property tax records reveals.

Los Angeles is not alone in importing water from hundreds of miles away. San Francisco obtains most of its water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir and water system in Yosemite, and the California state water project gets most of its water from rural areas in northern California. LA’s also not the only city that secures its water supply through land holdings – New York City has similar landlord-tenant relationships. But DWP in the Owens valley is the “poster child” for negatively impacting the broader local economy, according to Greg James, special counsel for Inyo county.

An irrigation ditch feeds into Bishop Creek in north-west Bishop.
Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLA

As water becomes increasingly scarce in a more extreme climate, urban communities like Los Angeles will increasingly need to rely on imported water, obtained at the expense of the environment and economies of rural and Indigenous communities. Los Angeles claims to be working toward diversifying its water portfolio through stormwater capture, recycled water and conservation as well as importing water from the Colorado River basin and northern California. But even after conservation efforts, LA projects it will still need to get about 30% of its water from the Owens valley by 2045, meaning the city and the valley are locked in a relationship for the foreseeable future.

Los Angeles DWP did not respond to a detailed request for comment from AfroLA. DWP’s Eastern Sierra division also did not respond to a request for comment.

The Land of Flowing Water

Inyo county is a land of extremes. The region is larger than the state of Vermont but fewer than 20,000 people call it home. In its west, the peaks of the Eastern Sierra tower 10,000ft above the Owens valley. In its south lie the desert landscapes of Death valley. Brave hikers can trek from Mt Whitney, the highest point in the continental US, to Badwater Basin in Death valley, the lowest point.

During winter, the Owens valley ground is parched. But come spring, when snowmelt runs from the Sierra and White Mountains down to the Owens River, the valley turns lush green. The Paiute, who have lived in the valley for thousands of years, named it Payahuunadü, the Land of Flowing Water.

The White Mountains peek through rain and snow pouring over the Paiute’s sacred Volcanic Tablelands, the northernmost edge of the Owens valley. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLA

William Mulholland, LA’s famed water and infrastructure czar, realized the valley’s potential when he camped in the area in 1904. LA agents soon went on a buying spree, locking in land and water holdings.

In the late 30s, the city briefly authorized the sale of about half of Bishop’s properties back into private ownership, but by the mid-40s, DWP had stopped that practice. Between 1967 and today, DWP added 10,000 more acres in the valley to its holdings.

Today, LA owns 252,000 of the county’s 6.5m acres. The federal government, which owns the land in Death Valley national park and Inyo national forest, holds much of the rest.

DWP’s extensive holdings make it the de facto landlord for many of Inyo county’s residents. DWP leases the majority of the region back to those living there – to the county government, to ranchers, to veterinarians and retailers, to families who have lived here for generations and people compelled to move in because of its stunning outdoors.

Living here had long been affordable, too. LA’s leases were inexpensive, and for decades, the lease process was simple and straightforward, valley residents said. Much like the way many mobile home parks operate, property owners own the structures of their homes and businesses, but not the land underneath. DWP leases them that land through agreements with fixed terms, at fixed rates. Lease holders pay either month-to-month or yearly. When a lessee previously sold their home or business, the lease for the property transferred to the new owner after a credit score check, lease holders recalled. Lease transfers were hardly ever rejected, they said.

That changed in 2016. That year, DWP ruled the way it had been treating leases conflicted with the 1924 Los Angeles city charter, which outlaws the sale or lease of city property except at public auction. From then on, DWP has only allowed leases to be transferred once. That meant an existing tenant could pass on their lease, but the new tenant could not, and instead would have to let the land revert back to LA control.

If leases go out to bid, DWP auctions the lease off to the highest bidder. Under the old system, the lessee was able to profit directly from the sale of their business. Now, DWP reaps the financial benefits of the auction.

DWP retroactively applied this policy to leases established before 2016. For lessees like Mike Allen, who have leased for decades, it has devalued their businesses and made them difficult to sell, because a new owner has no guarantee of recouping their costs.

The department carved out an exemption for families, allowing leases to transfer within a family an unlimited number of times.

“For 100 years they’ve never cared,” said Mark Lacey, a Lone Pine resident and rancher who sits on the Owens Valley Committee, a non-profit that helped negotiate environmental mitigations in a water agreement between LA and the county. “Now all of a sudden, you know, somebody decided, ‘Well, we’re going to actually follow the letter of the law based on the LA city charter that says, you know, we can’t do this. We have to put [leases] out to bid.’”

Many lessees often only learned of the changes when they went to renew their leases, or tried to transfer them.

Tom Talbot was the valley’s veterinarian for more than 45 years. Talbot owned Bishop veterinary hospital, a yellow cottage on the north side of Bishop near the intersection of Route 395 and Route 6. It’s the only full-service vet practice for hundreds of miles in every direction.

In 2015, Talbot wanted to retire from medicine while still healthy enough to ranch full-time. But when he went to sell the hospital and transfer his lease, he said, he found completely rewritten rules.

Bishop veterinary hospital on the north side of Bishop, the only full-service vet practice for hundreds of miles in every direction. Photograph: AfroLA/Handout

Talbot had hoped his son-in-law Tyler Ludwick, and Nicole Milici, who had volunteered working at the clinic since she was a teenager, would jointly take over the business.

But the new transfer policy meant Milici could not be put on the lease. As a relative, Ludwick could. “We’re 50% partners in the business,” said Ludwick. “But it’s all me on the lease.”

The lease structure forced Ludwick to take on more risk, he said in an interview, leaving him at the mercy of changes to his lease terms. But it was just the start of the veterinarians’ problems.

“It’s just a giant handcuff that completely stymies any possibility of growth, equity, business advancement, because you don’t have anything real to sell,” Ludwick said.

Ludwick’s lease has been expired for years, and DWP hasn’t renewed it. Without a lease active for the long run, it’s been hard to secure funds for repairs and improvements, he said.

The yellow and brick building that houses the clinic is 60 years old and “rotting out from under us”, said Ludwick.

After Talbot transferred his lease to Ludwick, lease policies changed again. Starting in 2016, the family transfer policy was limited to transfers between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, and between spouses. As Talbot’s son-in-law, Ludwick would never have been able to take over the lease.

Ludwick and Milici recently purchased an out-of-business Ford dealership on some rare non-DWP-owned private land. They built a brand new veterinary hospital on the land and they plan to use their current lease to provide specialty care, such as physical therapy.

“The good news is we got something that is ours,” said Ludwick. “It gives us freedom.”

The snow-capped White Mountains rise behind Line Street in downtown Bishop. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLA

Reagan Slee, owner of a sporting goods store, went through a different set of disappointments.

In 2019, DWP changed its stance on selling properties to lessees. The new policy allows some business owners the chance to purchase the land they are leasing. Slee’s store, filled with hunting and fishing gear, was at the top of that list.

Appraisers appraised, surveyors surveyed, and more than a year later Slee had a purchase agreement with the city of LA. That’s where progress stopped.

“The price was fair,” Slee said. He put money in the bank, then waited. More than 18 months have passed since Slee signed his purchase agreement.

“There was some excitement a year or two ago where we thought, ‘OK, this is finally going to happen,’” Slee said. “But now, I would be surprised if they called and said, ‘Hey, we’re ready to move forward.’”

Slee’s lease expired in 2017, so he, too, is in holdover status. It would take more than a year to draft a new lease in order to sell his business, he said.

Meanwhile, Slee struggles to upgrade or perform maintenance on his store. “You’re invested in something that is unknown, that is not yours and then there is no date attached to it. The value of the business is worth almost nothing, because if I was to go sell, it can’t be transferred.”

According to Slee, DWP could keep the lease in holdover for 15 years, or it could pull the plug tomorrow. DWP did not respond to questions about Slee’s case.

Since the transfer policies went into effect nearly a decade ago, approximately 20 leases have changed hands, according to AfroLA’s review of tax assessor data.

Meanwhile, at least 49 of DWP’s 354 leases and use permits in Inyo county have been removed from circulation and not put back out to bid. Use permits, which function similarly to leases, are “agreements for private use”, according to the aqueduct operations plan. These include people’s backyards, pasture for horses and other uses.

Tamara Cohen, a former Inyo county public health officer who served for 23 years, saw the use permit for her backyard return to DWP control. For years, she lived on a multi-home lot with two business partners, Kenney Scruggs and Benett Kessler, and a shared 1.3-acre backyard. The homes and the land underneath them were in a trust, with Scruggs’s name on the use permit. When Scruggs died, the DWP agreement passed to Kessler. And when Kessler passed away, Cohen was ready to take it over in turn. Instead, a DWP real estate officer paid her a visit, and told her to vacate the yard within 60 days.

The rules had changed since 2013, when Kessler, an investigative reporter who spent her career monitoring DWP, took over the agreement, Cohen recalled the agent saying. Because the agreement was held in a trust, the agent said, it was taken out of circulation and would need to go to auction instead of being transferred.

The agent didn’t seem happy about the prospect of an auction either, Cohen recalled: “[He] was pretty clear with us that going for the bid process was just really a hassle for him to do,” said Cohen. “He said they are trying to get rid of these kinds of [backyard] leases.”

Cohen was later given until the end of the original agreement, an additional 18 months, to clear out and vacate the land. This included ripping out a patio and Scruggs’ garden. Now there is nothing but dirt and locust trees. Last spring, Cohen spent $7,000 to remove the dead vegetation on DWP’s property in order to prevent flooding and fires.

“It’s disconcerting. The trees have come down on what used to be leased land and it’s scary – it’s such a fuel for fires,” Cohen said, pointing to the dead locust trees that line the creek behind her home. “That used to be a lease that was maintained, and now it’s not. It’s a fire risk.”

The cost of drought

The circumstances LA found itself in when it applied the lease changes were similar to the ones it faced when it arrived in the Owens valley more than a century ago: it was desperate for water.

If LA’s 200,000 residents were thirsty in 1904, today, the city has a daunting task of servicing 3.8 million people living in an ever-warming climate. Much of the south-west US has faced crippling drought conditions at various points in past decades, with states and cities competing for few resources.

DWP has also seen its operations in the Eastern Sierra curtailed. The origins of a trio of lawsuits settled between the late 80s and the early aughts are long and complicated. But the outcome of the suits, initiated over rules on environmental protections, legally requires DWP to leave hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water in Inyo and Mono counties for the towns; people, including Indigenous nations; and wildlife of the region.

Tom Talbot’s cattle are rounded up for vaccinations at his ranch in Round valley last year. Photograph: Katie Licari/AfroLA

The drought lasting from 2011 to 2016 marked the driest years ever recorded in California. In 2014, internal DWP documents show, department staff recognized it needed to make changes to “prevent waste of water” in some of its most important leases: those of Inyo county’s ranchers.

The majority of acres leased by DWP in the Eastern Sierra are to ranchers, who graze their herds in the shadows of rugged Sierra Nevada mountains.

Ranchers and DWP have a “symbiotic relationship”, said Scott Kemp, whose family ranches more than 1,000 cattle on department land, one of the largest herds in the valley. “We take care of the land … People from Los Angeles can come up here and fish, and do what they do.”

A 2006 internal agency document describes the relationship as such: “The ranch lessees serve as stewards of the land and monitor and manage their leases consistent with LADWP’s goal of providing a reliable high quality water supply to Los Angeles. With the ranch leases providing this function, LADWP is able to concentrate its personnel on maintaining and operating water conveyances.”

In 2014, amid the drought, DWP proposed to the ranchers to change their lease terms to limit the amount of irrigation water they receive as part of their leases in years of normal water supplies. The department also proposed to allow DWP to provide water at its sole discretion in years with low snowmelt from the mountains, and place restrictions on water for cattle to drink.

Inyo county’s water department responded that those changes could violate the 1991 water agreement between the county and DWP.

The proposed lease changes led to conversations between DWP and the trade group representing the ranchers. Both parties agreed on restrictions for how water, particularly for cattle to drink, would be used. They also agreed that ranch lessees from then on could only transfer their lease once. They agreed that DWP would keep the proceeds from leases that would be auctioned off instead of transferred.

A year later, DWP attempted to cut water off from the ranch lessees a second time. In a 27 April 2015 letter, DWP informed ranch lessees it would cut off their water supply in three days. According to a letter dated two days later, “plainly stated, there is insufficient water to meet all water users’ needs”. Concerned community members and the county met with DWP. The solution? Diverting some water destined for Owens Lake, which helped keep toxic dust from the dry lakebed out of the air, to irrigation water for ranchers.

Even though the transfer limits originated with the ranchers, the department applied the policy broadly. On 15 November 2016, commercial lessees and Inyo county supervisors grilled the aqueduct manager about the lease changes during a board meeting.

The county supervisor Jeff Griffiths told the then DWP aqueduct manager he hoped he and the city understood the repercussions of imposing the lease-transfer restrictions the ranchers had agreed to on commercial lessees as well. “This could be the largest economic impact to the community since LA’s original acquiring of Owens valley land,” said Griffiths.

Supervisor Jeff Griffiths on the steps of the Bishop Civic Center. Photograph: Dana Amihere/AfroLA

A DWP memo on the origin of the one-time assignment policy that was included in emails between DWP real estate staff and the then board president, Mel Levine, in 2016 only addresses ranch leases, and explains the changes were designed to bring the lease transfer process into compliance with the Los Angeles city charter and state law protecting DWP lessees in Inyo county.

But reporting by AfroLA shows the one-time assignment policy and the family transfer policy are being applied to commercial leases and use permits, such as Cohen’s backyard.

The restrictions that have been imposed on how much water LA can pull out of Inyo county, either through negotiations with the county or the courts, have been extremely costly for the city.

Internal DWP documents indicate that DWP has spent $30m-$40m annually buying water from southern California’s metropolitan water district to offset the water it now leaves in Inyo for the ranchers. The water DWP has been required to provide to Indigenous communities, for environmental mitigation and for agriculture since the water agreements costs the agency at least $124m annually, according to an internal briefing book.

A way of life

Though long constructive, the relationship between DWP and some ranchers has been strained by years of drought and lease changes.

“DWP is nice to us in the wet years,” said Talbot, the former veterinarian, whose ranch is located in the picturesque Round valley just north of Bishop.

In years water is plentiful, the department releases more water and provides flood control measures, Talbot said. But in dry years, DWP limits the ranchers’ water allocation to the minimum it is legally required to provide, he said.

Many Inyo county ranchers have been affected by severe cuts DWP has made to water allocations in Mono county, which doesn’t have the same legal protections as Inyo county.

Mark Lacey said he had to look for pasture land as far away as Oregon and Nebraska when DWP cut water to Mono county in 2015.

“I got transportation costs going up and then coming back. And then I had to pay for that pasture while I was there, as well as everything I have from DWP,” he recalled. “The transportation costs were horrendous.”

“After 2016, I couldn’t afford to do what I did. The price of cattle just didn’t allow me to make those moves,” he said. “Freight was too high. Pasture elsewhere either wasn’t available, or it was poor, [the price] was too high.”

Lacey has seen every drought in the Owens valley since the 70s. He said the 2011-16 drought was not as bad as the 1980s drought, but the impacts were more acute because of the water shutoffs.

For some in the county, the changes to the leases do not outweigh the benefits of LA’s land ownership. The county supervisor Jen Roeser said the agency’s presence in Inyo has been critical to maintaining the rural lifestyle residents enjoy.

Roeser lives in a mobile home on a DWP lease she’s had for decades. “It’s our whole lifestyle. And our purpose in life that we felt we were given was to operate a quality business in the mountains,” she said, one of her dogs napping in the shade of the black locust trees.

Roeser and her husband recently retired from running a mule packing business, which serves tourists hiking deep into the Sierra backcountry and also serves as one of the only ways to fight fires high up in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Bishop’s home to a week-long mule rodeo, and Roeser is a mule rodeo champion.

Supervisor Jen Roeser leads a mule packing team at Bishop’s 2023 Mule Days, Inyo county’s biggest tourist event, held each Memorial Day weekend. Photograph: Katie Licari/AfroLA

“[We’ve] introduced families and tourists to amazing experiences that impacted their lives and gave them memories that last generations, and we hear from hundreds of people every year that have memories that are still with them from pack trips. And these leases make that possible,” said Roeser.

On the other side of the Sierra, Roeser explained, the lease rates of winter pasture land have grown increasingly expensive. DWP land, she said, is higher quality than alternatives.

DWP, she added, also stimulates local economies as the county’s largest employer. It provides well-paying jobs – employing engineers and scientists and staff maintaining its infrastructure – with good benefits for local residents, including multigenerational families who live in the county but work for the city of Los Angeles, she said. DWP’s payroll in the Owens valley was approximately $60m.

As Los Angeles takes steps to diversify its water sources, the Eastern Sierra region will still make up a critical supply of the city’s water needs. For the Owens valley, that means a continuation of good jobs, but also the continued presence of a landlord 300 miles away making decisions about its residents’ livelihoods. While decisions, often behind closed doors, are made, lessees like Slee and Allen wait.

Credits

This investigation was supported with funding from the Data-Driven Reporting Project, which is funded by the Google News Initiative in partnership with Northwestern University | Medill.

The stories are the result of more than two years of records requests, interviews and data analysis by AfroLA. Guardian US provided assistance as a co-publishing partner in the editing, production and promotion of this story. Collaboration and co-publication with the Mammoth Sheet helped ensure that Owens valley residents have ready access to news that directly affects their lives and communities. Thank you to the many people who made reporting and sharing this story possible.

For AfroLA

Justin Allen, technology manager

Dana Amihere, editor

Jennings Hanna, interaction designer

Alexandra Kanik, web developer

Katie Licari, reporter

Stu Patterson, copy editor

Alex Tatusian, visual designer

For Guardian US

Matthew Cantor, copy editor

Will Craft, data editor

Eline Gordts, editor

Thalia Juarez, photo editor

Andrew Witherspoon, data editor

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Power-Thirsty AI Turns to Mothballed Nuclear Plants. Is That Safe?

As Microsoft strikes a deal to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island to power AI, nuclear specialists weigh in on the unprecedented process

Microsoft announced on 20 September that it had struck a 20-year deal to purchase energy from a dormant nuclear power plant that will be brought back online. And not just any plant: Three Mile Island, the facility in Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania, that was the site of the worst-ever nuclear accident on US soil when a partial meltdown of one of its reactors occurred in 1979.The move, which symbolizes technology giants’ need to power their growing artificial-intelligence (AI) efforts, raises questions over how shuttered nuclear plants can be restarted safely — not least because Three Mile Island isn’t the only plant being brought out of retirement.Palisades Nuclear Plant, an 805-megawatt facility in Covert, Michigan, was shut down in May 2022. But the energy company that owns it, Holtec International, based in Jupiter, Florida, plans to reopen it. This reversal in the facility’s fortunes has been bolstered by a US$1.5-billion conditional loan commitment from the US Department of Energy (DoE), which sees nuclear plants — a source of low-carbon electricity — as a way of helping the country to meet its ambitious climate goals. The Palisades plant is on track to reopen in late 2025.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“It’s the first time something like this has been attempted, that we’re aware of, worldwide,” says Jason Kozal, director of the reactor safety division at a regional office of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in Naperville, Illinois, and the co-chair of a regulatory panel overseeing the restart of Palisades.Here, Nature talks to nuclear specialists about what it will take to restart these plants and whether more are on the way as the world’s demand for AI grows.A change in fortunesSince 2012, more than a dozen nuclear plants have been shut down in the United States, in some cases as a result of unfavourable economics. Less cost-effective plants — such as those with only a single working reactor — struggled to remain profitable in states with deregulated electricity markets and widely varying prices. Three Mile Island, owned by the utility company Constellation Energy in Baltimore, Maryland, is a prime example. Today, 54 US plants remain in operation, running a total of 94 reactors.Nuclear energy, which accounts for about 9% of the world’s electricity, has seen some resurgence internationally, but is also competing with other energy sources, including renewables. After the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, Japan suspended operations at all of its 48 remaining nuclear plants, but these are gradually being brought back online, in part to cut dependence on gas imports. By contrast, Germany announced a phase-out of its nuclear plants in 2011, and shut down its last three in 2023.In the United States, nuclear energy’s fortunes might be turning as technology companies race to build enormous, energy-gobbling data centres to support their AI systems and other applications while somehow fulfilling their climate pledges. Microsoft, for instance, has committed to being carbon negative by 2030.“It’s further confirmation of the value of nuclear, and, if the deal is right — if the price is right — then it makes business sense, as well,” says Jacopo Buongiorno, the director of the Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.A new startThis isn’t the first time that the United States has brought a powered-down reactor back online. In 1985, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned electric utility company, took the reactors at its Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Athens, Alabama, offline. After years of refurbishment, they were brought back online, with the final reactor restarted in 2007.The cases of Palisades and Three Mile Island are different, however. When those plants closed, their then-owners made legal statements that the facilities would be shut down, even though their operating licenses were still active. Three Mile Island, which will be renamed the Crane Clean Energy Center under the proposed restart, shut down its single remaining functional reactor in 2019.Because the plants were slated for shutdown and safety checks were therefore stopped, regulators and companies must now navigate a complex licensing, oversight and environmental-assessment process to reverse the plants’ decommissioning.Safety checks will be needed to ensure, among other things, that the plants can operate securely once uranium fuel rods have been replaced in their reactors. When these plants were decommissioned, their radioactive fuel was removed and stored, so the facilities no longer needed to adhere to many exacting technical specifications, says Jamie Pelton, also a co-chair of the Palisades restart panel, and a deputy director at the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in Rockville, Maryland.It will be no small feat to reinstate those safety regulations: to meet the standards, infrastructure will need to be inspected carefully. According to Buongiorno, any metallic components in the plants that have corroded since the shutdowns, including wires and cables used in instrumentation and controls, will need to be replaced.The plants’ turbine generators, which make electricity from the steam produced as the plants’ fuel rods heat up water, will also get a close look. After sitting dormant for years, a turbine could develop defects within its shaft or corrosion along its blades that would require refurbishment. In the case of Palisades, the NRC announced on 18 September that the plant’s steam generators would need further testing and repair, following inspections conducted by Holtec.Nuclear’s prospectsAs the plants near their restart dates, their operators will also have to contend with a challenge faced by even fully operational plants: the need to source fresh nuclear fuel. US nuclear utility companies have long counted on the international market to buy much of the necessary raw yellowcake uranium and the services that separate and enrich uranium-235, the isotope used in nuclear reactors’ fuel rods. Russia has been a major international supplier of these services, even after the country’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, because US and European sanctions have not targeted nuclear fuel. But to minimize its reliance on Russia, the United States is building up its own supply chain, with the DoE offering $3.4 billion to buy domestically enriched uranium.There probably won’t be too many other restarts of mothballed nuclear plants in the United States, however, even as demand for low-carbon electricity grows. Not every US plant that has been shut down is necessarily in good enough condition to be easily refurbished — and the idea of reopening some of those would meet with too much resistance. As an example, Buongiorno points to New York’s Indian Point Energy Center, which was closed in 2021. The plant’s proximity to New York City had long provoked criticism from nuclear-safety advocates.But that doesn’t mean that all of these sites will remain unused. One option is to build advanced reactors — including large reactors with upgraded safety features and small modular reactors with innovative designs — on sites where old nuclear plants once stood, to take advantage of existing transmission lines and infrastructure. “We might see interest in the US in building more of these large reactors, whether that’s fuelled by data centres or some other applications,” Buongiorno adds. “Utilities and customers are exploring this at the moment.”This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on September 30, 2024.

Houston has its first vinyl-record manufacturer and it’s located in the East End

610 Record Manufacturing is the first vinyl record manufacturer in the Houston area, and it's located within the East End's $38 million innovation hub that opened three years ago. Joel Hoyle is the owner of the manufacturer.

Patricia Ortiz/Houston Public MediaJoel Hoyle’s first customer was a Houston-area band called Ghost Party. Their vinyl record is playing in the testing room at 610 Record Manufacturing.610 Record Manufacturing takes tiny PVC pellets and turns them into plastic pucks which are then flattened with metal stamps that have the grooves needed to hear music from a vinyl record. It’s the first vinyl record manufacturer in the Houston area, and it’s located within the East End’s $38 million innovation hub that opened three years ago. Joel Hoyle is the owner of the manufacturer. “I don’t remember a day without music, but I do remember being about 8 years old, riding in the car with my parents… one of them asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, and with no hesitation at all whatsoever, I was like, ‘I wanna be President of United States and a rock star,'” he said with a laugh. Hoyle’s first instrument was a guitar. He started playing when he was about 13 years old, and said he got into a band as soon as possible. He even got the chance to hit the road a few times. “I got called ‘band mom.’ The one who handled all the business stuff in the band,” he said. As he got older, Hoyle eventually chose to get a suit-and-tie job to pay the bills. But he quickly learned he didn’t “really get along well with Corporate America”. He began thinking about opening his own business and eventually settled on a vinyl-pressing facility. He officially opened up the shop on June 10 of this year, in honor of the company name. The New York Times reports vinyl records are now the music industry’s highest-grossing physical format. According to Billboard charts, 2023 was also the 18th consecutive year vinyl album sales grew in the U.S. Patricia Ortiz/Houston Public MediaJoel Hoyle next to one of two machines he uses to press vinyl records.Hoyle said music lovers like the physicality of records. “Getting [the record] nice and clean, turning the table on, the whole ritual. Everything about it. Putting the needle on, waiting for that sound to come in. Especially with something you haven’t heard before,” he said. “…I think also, maybe on a little bit larger scale, everything being attached to the digital world more so every day, I think kinda human nature, we like things that we can physically hold in our hand.” Some music experts will argue vinyl has the best sound because its frequency is usually closer to what the human ear can hear. According to the National Institute of Health, humans can detect frequencies from 20 Hz to 20kHz. Vinyl records can have frequencies ranging from 7Hz to 50kHz according to Furnace Record Pressing, the largest vinyl-pressing manufacturer in the nation. Furnace Record Pressing was acquired by the heavy metal rock band, Metallica, just last year as reported by Variety. “That’s why a lot of people describe the sound of records as being natural and warm,” Hoyle said. “And it’s true, it’s because it is. It’s a natural fit to our ears. … if you’re going for pure, direct replication of sound, a CD is probably gonna be one of the best things.” He said CDs and records are some of the best ways to support smaller artists. “Unless you’re large enough to get the good streaming contract, you’re not making any money from streaming,” he said. “You’re making money from selling something like records.” Customers of vinyl-pressing manufacturers can range from independent artists and bands to record labels and managers. Hoyle said he’s only had a few customers so far, but his first one was a Houston-area band named Ghost Party. VIDEO Local artists have a chance to listen to the master copy of their vinyl record in person, which Hoyle said speeds up the manufacturing process because he doesn’t have to ship the record back and forth if the artist isn’t satisfied with it. In the past, record-making has come with environmental concerns. According to a report from the Vinyl Record Manufacturers Association and Vinyl Alliance, found that 50% of emissions that come from record-making stem from the PVC material it’s made out of. Still, the environmental impact of buying a record is significantly smaller than filling up a car with a tank of gas, according to the report. Hoyle also said the process has become more environmentally friendly over the years and there are still more ways to keep improving. “Old school pressing plants were notoriously dirty, grimey places. Hydraulic oil all over the floor, steam flying everywhere, and dumping a lot of water down the drain. Pretty much no record-pressing plant on the planet does that anymore. … much more environmentally conscious industry, which is absolutely fantastic,” he said. Hoyle said he’s hoping to eventually reach out to some schools in the area to get added to field trip lists and teach the youth about record-making. But for now, he’s mostly focused on reaching out to more local artists. “People have different names for it. I call it Houstonitis. A lot of people in Houston still seem to think that we’re an underdog city in the music world, and we’re not,” Hoyle said. “This is where the talent’s from.”

A federal attempt to foster ‘high-integrity voluntary carbon markets’ falls short, experts say

New guidance for credit-based derivatives gives “imprimatur to a system that doesn’t have credibility to begin with.”

After two years of meetings and consultation with the public, a little-known federal regulator this month issued its final guidance on the trading of derivatives based on carbon credits, the certificates companies buy and sell on a voluntary basis to say they’ve offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Experts had hoped that the guidance from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, would address widespread concerns about carbon credit-related fraud — essentially, the fear that credits are not delivering their promised emissions reductions. Scientific articles and media investigations over the past several years have revealed that many credits are based on forest conservation projects in areas that were never in danger of being chopped down, or that they sequester carbon in ways that are unlikely to last more than a few years. In a statement, CFTC Chair Rostin Behnam called the guidance “a critical step in support of the development of high-integrity voluntary carbon markets.”​​ But experts and environmental groups aren’t so enthused. Some don’t think it’ll make much of a difference, due to its limited reach, while others worry the guidance will lend undue legitimacy to the idea of carbon credits — the majority of which they believe shouldn’t be traded in the first place. “It’s giving this imprimatur to a system that doesn’t have credibility to begin with,” said Clara Vondrich, senior policy counsel for the nonprofit Public Citizen. To understand what’s going on, it’s important to understand the purpose of the CFTC. The agency was created by Congress in 1974 to regulate the U.S. market for derivatives, contracts in which prices are derived from the value of an underlying asset or benchmark. One easy-to-understand derivative is called a futures contract, a promise to sell an asset at a particular price at some point in the future. Farmers might sell futures contracts to lock in a selling price for wheat, protecting themselves from a future price collapse. In that case, the CFTC’s job is to ensure that the wheat actually gets delivered. Since 1974, however, the CFTC has sought to regulate increasingly complicated derivatives products. Carbon credit-based futures contracts are a prime example: In this case, a company buys a contract for credits based on emissions reductions that have not yet happened, but are promised to occur at some point in the future. Compared to the wheat example, it’s much less clear what counts as legitimate delivery of the carbon credit. It depends in large part on whether the credits really will cause the emissions reductions that buyers expect them to. As the CFTC was drafting its guidance, experts urged the agency to take a proactive role in regulating not only carbon credit-based derivatives, but also the credits themselves. No other federal agency has taken on that task, and there were hopes that the CFTC could do so — potentially by invoking its anti-fraud authority over markets for products whose derivatives are listed on CFTC-regulated exchanges. “If there is a commodity and if that commodity has a derivative on a regulated exchange,” said Todd Phillips, an assistant professor of law in the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, “the CFTC has authority over the underlying” commodity. Last year, there were indications that the CFTC could be gearing up to regulate carbon credits. In June 2023, the agency put out a whistleblower alert asking the public to report manipulation in the voluntary carbon market, and not long after, it announced a new Environmental Fraud Task Force to help investigate cases of “fraud and misconduct” in offset-related markets. One of the CFTC’s five commissioners, Christy Goldsmith Romero, explicitly said in December that the agency’s anti-fraud authority should extend to the underlying market for carbon credits — “given the potential for impact to the derivatives markets.” Several high-profile carbon credit projects have claimed to protect parcels of rainforest that were never in danger of being chopped down. Jody Amiet / AFP via Getty Images But the final guidance — which is not legally binding, but rather intended to help clarify exchanges’ obligations under existing CFTC regulations — came up short of what many experts were hoping for. The 99-page document mostly asks futures exchanges to conform to an existing set of best practices for carbon accounting, as defined by a nonprofit governance body called the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, or ICVCM. These best practices involve transparent calculations of greenhouse gas emissions, third-party verification, and reporting on whether credits represent emissions reductions that would not have otherwise taken place. There are two potential problems with this approach. First, according to Phillips, the CFTC’s deference to the ICVCM essentially restricted its purview. “What the CFTC has done with this guidance is they have said that only offsets that meet the ICVCM standards can be listed on exchanges,” he said. “Which means there are no low-quality offsets that will be listed on exchanges, which means the CFTC does not have anti-fraud authority there.”  In other words, the CFTC designed its guidance in such a way that it cannot do anything about the underlying voluntary markets’ low-quality carbon credits, which are the most likely to be fraudulent. The guidance is “extremely limited in reach,” as Erin Shortell, a legal fellow at the nonprofit Institute for Policy Integrity, put it in a blog post. The second issue is that not everyone trusts the ICVCM standards to insure against issues like reversal, where credit projects prematurely release their stored carbon — such as when a forest tied to carbon credits is destroyed by a wildfire — or double-counting, where the same emissions reductions are counted by two separate entities. Rebecca Sanders-DeMott, director of ecosystem carbon management for the pro-carbon market nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, said in a statement that the CFTC was “continuing to rely on crediting protocols that are in need of a major overhaul.” In response to Grist’s request for comment, the ICVCM referred Grist to Nat Keohane, one of the organization’s senior advisers and president of the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Keohane said the ICVCM’s standards for carbon credits were developed in a “transparent and rigorous” fashion meant to model a regulatory process, and that they adequately address concerns about credits’ legitimacy. “These are expert issues,” he added. “They take a lot of specialized expertise … and I don’t think anybody would say that the CFTC has the kind of requisite understanding of the real issues and the details involved” not to defer to the knowledge of other groups such as the ICVCM.  While Sanders-DeMott’s organization believes better regulation is needed to help the voluntary carbon market grow — and “play a meaningful role in addressing climate change” — other advocacy groups think the market has been too plagued with problems to be redeemed.   According to Phillips, the root of the problem is that the CFTC was never designed to be a climate watchdog for the federal government. To the extent that markets for carbon credits and their derivatives should exist, he said, Congress needs to create a new agency — or designate an existing one — to be their overseer.  As an example, he pointed to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a nonprofit corporation created by the federal government in 2002 to oversee audits of U.S.-listed public companies. Previously, corporate auditors had been entirely self-regulated — much like the voluntary carbon market is today. At present, “everyone has an incentive to just cut corners and allow low-quality offsets to exist,” Phillips said. “There is no government entity whose job it is to ensure that low-quality offsets are taken off the market, and someone needs to have that responsibility.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A federal attempt to foster ‘high-integrity voluntary carbon markets’ falls short, experts say on Sep 30, 2024.

Could pawpaw, the US-native fruit, become the new kiwi or mango?

Pawpaw, a tree fruit that can help farmers and the environment, stays resilient in face of a climate crisisAbout five years ago, Matt Feyerabend, co-owner of an Arkansas ice-cream business, wanted to explore new flavors and use more native fruits, so while delivering a batch of product to a restaurant in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, he asked if anyone knew a grower of pawpaws, a tree fruit native to the United States with a flavor described as a mix between a mango and a banana.A server said her father, a veterinarian, had trees on his property. Feyerabend and his wife, Meghan, now annually purchase hundreds of pounds of the fruit from the vet and other growers and sell pawpaw ice-cream and other treats containing the fruit and its seeds. Continue reading...

About five years ago, Matt Feyerabend, co-owner of an Arkansas ice-cream business, wanted to explore new flavors and use more native fruits, so while delivering a batch of product to a restaurant in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, he asked if anyone knew a grower of pawpaws, a tree fruit native to the United States with a flavor described as a mix between a mango and a banana.A server said her father, a veterinarian, had trees on his property. Feyerabend and his wife, Meghan, now annually purchase hundreds of pounds of the fruit from the vet and other growers and sell pawpaw ice-cream and other treats containing the fruit and its seeds.They are part of a growing industry. In recent years, people have started pawpaw festivals around the country, and in 2022, the US Department of Agriculture included the fruit in its agricultural census for the first time and reported that the country had almost 1,500 farms containing 800 acres of the fruit.Growers are trying to meet the increased demand but faced challenges this year because some trees flowered earlier than normal and were then hit by a late-season frost that destroyed some of the crop.Scientists said the unusual weather was related to the climate crisis and say that such events could create problems for growers, just as the industry in the US is taking off.Still, people in the industry remain optimistic about pawpaw’s potential because it is native to the United States and there are many varieties around the country. As such, the crop could be able to better adapt to the effects of the climate crisis than fruits like apples and peaches.“Since there are native stands of [pawpaws] all over the country, we have so much variation and lots of stuff with great fruit quality,” said Adam D’Angelo, director of research at Project Pawpaw, a company that aims to develop new varieties of the fruit. “We are able to draw upon that to make sure that we still have crops that can perform in varying conditions.”The pawpaw is the largest edible fruit native to the United States, and the crop typically ripens in the fall. It has a shelf life of just two to three days, which makes selling it harder.Universities have invested in research programs to improve propagation of the plant.Pawpaw enthusiasts have also launched festivals that have increased awareness of the fruit.D’Angelo thinks the fruit can help small farmers and the environment.“This tropical-tasting, delicious fruit that grows right here is, in some ways, displacing tropical fruit that is being shipped across the world”, which raises greater environmental and ethical concerns than something grown locally, said D’Angelo, who grew up in a family with a garden center and nursery in northern New Jersey.Feyerabend was unsure how to introduce a pawpaw flavor to Pure Joy Ice Cream customers not familiar with its taste, so he made a sorbet in which he used lime juice to “accentuate the tropical notes in the pawpaw fruit”, he said.Customers liked it.“They weren’t even super interested in what the pawpaw was. It wasn’t for any interest in tropical fruit or native fruit. They were legitimately just enjoying the flavor of it,” said Feyerabend, who went to one pawpaw festival in 2023 and plans to sell at four this year.But one of his suppliers recently had a webworm infestation damage his crop. The fruit was still usable, Feyerabend said. The farmer released wasps – rather than a pesticide spray – to attack the worms.“It’s a very valuable fruit” and “requires a fraction of the inputs of a traditional fruit crop and far less spraying”, D’Angelo said.Still, farmers in Ohio and Kentucky reported that the early flowering this year created a bitter taste.Kentucky State University, which has a pawpaw research program, lost 40% of its crop to unusual weather, said Kirk Pomper, a horticulture professor at the school. Still, he thinks that pawpaw farmers can adjust to new weather patterns by planting orchards on north-facing hillsides to slow the flowering and investing in new irrigation methods to contend with more frequent draughts, he said.“It’s just going to make it a little more challenging,” said Pomper, who has worked on the fruit for two decades.Pomper remains optimistic about the fruit’s potential because people have become more adventurous in what they eat, he said. He envisions pawpaws following a trajectory similar to fruits like the kiwi and mango, which became more popular in the United States in recent decades.“The pawpaw fits right in there with that tropical-like flavor, even though it’s grown in temperate areas,” Pomper said.People in the industry also expect entrepreneurs to find more uses for the pawpaw pulp. In addition to making ice-cream with it, Feyerabend delivered pawpaws to a local brewer who planned to make a beer with the fruit.Still even if the pawpaw market continues to grow, D’Angelo does not think people should dedicate an entire farm to the fruit.“Diversification is essential. If you have a bad year for pawpaws, you might have a great year for chestnuts, right?” D’Angelo said. “Spreading out that risk is what is going to help foster resilience in our food system and is going to help keep small farms innovating and keep them viable.”

NY Judge Denies Governor’s Bid to Toss Suit Challenging Decision to Halt Manhattan Congestion Fee

A New York judge has denied Gov. Kathy Hochul’s request to toss out lawsuits challenging her decision to halt a new congestion fee for drivers into Manhattan

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York judge on Friday denied Gov. Kathy Hochul’s request to toss out lawsuits challenging her decision to halt a new congestion fee for drivers into Manhattan. The tolling program, which had been set to start June 30, would have imposed on drivers entering the core of Manhattan a toll of about $15, depending on vehicle type, in order to generate about $1 billion annually for transit improvements. Andrew Celli, a lawyer representing the City Club of New York, one of the local groups that has sued Hochul, said afterward that the judge’s ruling means the lawsuits will move forward and the governor will have to justify her actions in court.“What the judge did here is he said that congestion pricing will not be delayed by legal technicalities,” he said outside court. “That’s a huge victory for people that care about the law and people that care about congestion pricing.”Alan Schoenfeld, a lawyer representing Hochul and the state Department of Transportation in the lawsuits, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Groups challenging the governor’s decision, including the Riders Alliance, the Sierra Club and the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, argue the Democrat violated the state’s laws and constitution when she indefinitely paused the fee just days before its planned launch.Hochul at the time cited economic concerns, suggesting it wasn’t the right time to impose a new toll scheme as local businesses and residents were still recovering financially from the coronavirus pandemic. In court Friday, Celli argued that state lawmakers deliberately did not give the governor’s office authority on when the fee would be imposed when it passed it into law in 2019.Instead, he argued, the legislature charged the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, which oversees the bridges and tunnels in the New York City area, with making that final decision in order to remove politics from the equation. “She doesn’t have the discretion,” Celli said. But Schoenfeld said it was a “demonstrably false” to suggest that state lawmakers intended to put the tunnel and bridge authority “unilaterally” in charge of congestion pricing.He argued that the law also recognizes the critical role the governor’s office and state DOT play in the process.Engoron, at points in the hearing, appeared unmoved by Schoenfeld’s arguments. He also joked at the outset of the hearing that he drove into Manhattan for the hearing and the traffic was terrible.“Can’t anyone do anything about that?” Engoron said to laughs before launching into the proceedings. Dror Ladin, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which represented some of the groups challenging Hochul, also argued that the months since the governor’s decision this summer have been damaging.He says New Yorkers have dealt with more traffic, more negative health and environmental consequences from air pollution and further delays in desperately needed transit system upgrades.“There’s a real harm here,” Ladin said. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.