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

EU's Von Der Leyen Says Private Sector Deals Could Unlock 4 Billion Euros for Western Balkans

TIRANA (Reuters) -European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Monday private sector deals signed or in the pipeline could unlock...

TIRANA (Reuters) -European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Monday private sector deals signed or in the pipeline could unlock about 4 billion euros ($4.63 billion) in new investment as part of an EU growth plan for the Western Balkans region.During a summit in the Albanian capital Tirana between the EU and the Western Balkans countries, Von der Leyen invited investors to take part in the growth plan that aims to double the size of the region's economies in the next decade.She said that 10 important business deals will be signed in Tirana on Monday, and 24 other potential investments will be discussed on Tuesday."Together they could bring more than 4 billion euros in new investments in the region," Von der Leyen said at the summit. "The time to invest in the Western Balkans is now."The EU has pledged 6 billion euros to help the six Western Balkans nations form a regional common market and join the European common market in areas such as free movement of goods and services, transport and energy.But in order for payments to be made, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia must implement reforms and resolve outstanding issues with their neighbours.Von der Leyen identified artificial intelligence, clean energy and industrial value chains as three strategic sectors that would integrate local industries into EU supply chains.She cautioned that regulatory integration and industrial alliances are key to this effort.The six countries were promised EU membership years ago but the accession process has slowed to a crawl.The delay is partly due to reluctance among the EU's 27 members and a lack of reforms required to meet EU standards - including those concerning the economy, judiciary, legal systems, environmental protection and media freedoms.Serbia and Montenegro were the first in the region to launch EU membership talks, and Albania and North Macedonia began talks with Brussels in 2022. Bosnia and Kosovo lag far behind.(Reporting by Daria Sito-SucicEditing by Ros Russell)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Offshore oil plan was 'primed for cash flow,' but then it hit California regulators

A Texas company wants to drill for oil off Santa Barbara County's coast. Experts say its path to oil sales is looking more and more challenging.

When a Texas oil company first announced controversial plans to reactivate three drilling rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara County, investor presentations boasted that the venture had “massive resource potential” and was “primed for cash flow generation.” But now, less than two years later, mounting legal setbacks and regulatory issues are casting increasing doubt on the project’s future.Most recently, the California attorney general filed suit against Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp., accusing it of repeatedly putting “profits over environmental protections.” The lawsuit, filed last week in Santa Barbara County Superor Court, accuses Sable of continually failing to follow state laws and regulations intended to protect water resources. Sable, the lawsuit claims, “was at best misinformed, incompetent and incorrect” when it came to understanding and adhering to the California Water Code. “At worst, Sable was simply bamboozling the Regional Water Board to meet a critical deadline,” according to the lawsuit.The action comes less than a month after the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office filed criminal charges against the company, accusing it of knowingly violating state environmental laws while working on repairs to oil pipelines that have sat idle since a major spill in 2015. The company also faces legal challenges from the California Coastal Commission, environmental groups and even its own investors. These developments now threaten the company’s ability to push forward on what has become an increasingly expensive and complicated project, according to some experts.Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said there are still ways Sable could get off the ground and begin oil sales, but the repeated setbacks have become what he called “cumulative risk” for investors, who are key to funding the restart. “Sable is at risk of burning through its cash, and lenders are going to have to make a decision about whether or not this is a good investment,” Williams-Derry said. Ongoing pushback from the public, the state and in lawsuits makes that increasingly a hard argument to make, he said. Sable, however, said it remains steadfast in its goal of reactivating the Santa Ynez Unit — a complex of three offshore platforms, onshore processing facilities and connecting pipelines. The unit was shuttered by a different company a decade ago after a corroded section of pipeline ruptured near Refugio State Beach, creating one of the state’s worst oil spills. The company denies that it has broken any laws and insists that it has followed all necessary regulations. Recently, however, company officials have promoted a new restart plan that could avoid California oversight. Company officials say the new plan would keep the project entirely within federal waters — pivoting away from using the contentious pipelines and from what company officials called California’s “crumbling energy complex.”Jim Flores, the company’s chief executive, said Sable is working with the Trump administration’s National Energy Dominance Council on the plan to use an offshore storage and treatment vessel to transport crude from its offshore wells instead of the pipeline system. Although the company reports that pipeline repairs are complete, the lines have not yet been approved for restart by state regulators. “California has to make a decision soon on the pipeline before Sable signs an agreement for the [offshore vessel] and goes all in on the offshore federal-only option,” Flores said in a statement. The company acknowledges that transporting oil by ship instead of pipeline would dramatically extend the company’s timeline and increase its costs. In a June Securities and Exchange Commission report, Sable said there was “substantial doubt ... about the company’s ability to continue,” given ongoing negative cash flow and stalled regulatory approvals. However, the company says it continues to seek approvals to restart the pipelines from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. The state fire marshal has said the plans remain under review, but the office has made clear that the pipelines will be approved for operation only “once all compliance and safety requirements, including ... approvals from other state, federal and local agencies, are met.”Deborah Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford’s Law School, said it’s getting harder to see a successful path forward for Sable.“It’s pretty rare that an entity would have all these agencies lined up concerned about their impacts,” Sivas said of state regulators. “These agencies don’t very lightly go to litigation or enforcement actions. ... and the public is strongly against offshore drilling. So those are a whole bunch of reasons that I think are going to be hard obstacles for that company.”But even if Sable can pivot to federal-only oversight under a friendly Trump administration, Williams-Derry said there’s no clear-cut path. “This is an environment where some of the best, most profitable oil companies in the U.S. have cut drilling this year because profits are too low,” Williams-Derry said. Sable has enough money in the bank right now to have a “little bit of running room,” he said, “...but you can imagine that [investors] are going to start running out of patience.”The new lawsuit filed by the California attorney general lays out a year’s worth of instances in which Sable either ignored or defied the California Water Code during the firm’s pipeline repair work. The attorney general’s office called Sable’s evasion of regulatory oversight “egregious,” warranting “substantial penalties.” It’s not immediately clear how much will be demanded, but violations of the California Water Code are subject to a civil liability of up to $5,000 for each day a violation occurs. Despite repeated reminders and warnings from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast region, Sable did not comply with the water code, preventing the board “from assuring best management practices ... to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to water quality,” the lawsuit said. “No corporation should gain a business advantage by ignoring the law and harming the environment,” Jane Gray, chair of the Central Coast Water Board, said in a statement. “Entities that discharge waste are required to obtain permits from the state to protect water quality. Sable Offshore Corp. is no different.”The case comes months after the California Coastal Commission similarly found that Sable failed to adhere to the state’s Coastal Act despite repeated warnings and fined the company $18 million.

Work Advice: How to avoid ‘workslop’ and other AI pitfalls

AI at work has drawbacks such as ‘workslop,’ which can hinder productivity. Strategic AI use and transparency are top solutions.

Following my response to a reader who’s resisting a push to adopt artificial intelligence tools at work, readers shared their thoughts and experiences — pro, con and resigned — on using AI.The consensus was that some interaction with AI is unavoidable for anyone who works with technology, and that refusing to engage with it — even for principled reasons, such as the environmental harm it causes — could be career-limiting.But there’s reason to believe that generative AI in the office may not be living up to its fundamental value proposition of making us more productive.A September article in Harvard Business Review (free registration required) warns that indiscriminate AI use can result in what the article dubs “workslop”: “AI-generated work content that masquerades as good work but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task.”Examples of workslop include AI-generated reports, code and emails that take more time to correct and decipher than if they had been created from scratch by a human. They’re destructive and wasteful — not only of water or electricity, but of people’s time, productivity and goodwill.“The insidious effect of workslop is that it shifts the burden of the work downstream,” the HBR researchers said.Of course, workslop existed before AI. We’ve all had our time wasted and productivity bogged down by people who dominate meetings talking about nothing, send rambling emails without reviewing them for clarity or pass half-hearted work down the line for someone else to fix. AI just allows them to do more of it, faster. And just like disinformation, once workslop enters the system, it risks polluting the pool of knowledge everyone draws from.In addition to the literal environment, AI workslop can also damage the workplace environment. The HBR researchers found that receiving workslop caused approximately half of recipients to view the sender as “less creative, capable and reliable” — even less trustworthy or intelligent.But, as mentioned above, it’s probably not wise — or feasible — to avoid using AI. “AI is embedded in your everyday tasks, from your email client, grammar checkers, type-ahead, social media clients suggesting the next emoji,” said Dean Grant from Port Angeles, Washington, whose technology career has spanned 50 years. The proper question, he said, is not how to avoid using it, but what it can do for you and how it can give you a competitive advantage.But even readers who said they use AI appropriately acknowledged its flaws and limitations, including that its implementation sometimes takes more effort than simply performing the task themselves.“[H]ow much time should I spend trying to get the AI to work? If I can do the task [without AI] in an hour, should I spend 30 minutes fumbling with the artificial stupid?” asked Matt Deter of Rocklin, California. “At what point should I cut my losses?”So it seems an unwinnable struggle. If you can’t avoid or opt out of AI altogether, how do you make sure you’re not just adding to the workslop, generating resentment and killing productivity?Don’t make AI a solution in search of a problem. This one’s for the leaders. Noting that “indiscriminate imperatives yield indiscriminate usage,” the HBR article urges leaders encouraging AI use to provide guidelines for using it “in ways that best align to the organization’s strategy, values, and vision.” As with return-to-office mandates, if leaders can articulate a purpose, and workers have autonomy to push back when the mandate doesn’t meet that purpose, the result is more likely to add value.Don’t let AI have the last word. Generating a raw summary of a meeting for your own reference is one thing; if you’re sharing it with someone else, take the time to trim the irrelevant portions, highlight the important items, and add context where needed. If you use AI to generate ideas, take time to identify the best ones and shape them to your needs.Be transparent about using AI. If you’re worried about being judged for using AI, just know that the judgment will be even harsher if you try to pass it off as your own work, or if you knowingly pass along unvetted information with no warning.Weigh convenience against conservation. If we can get in the habit of separating recyclables and programming thermostats, we can be equally mindful about our AI usage. An AI-generated 100-word email uses the equivalent of a single-use bottle of water to cool and power the data centers processing that query. Knowing that, do you need a transcript of every meeting you attend, or are you requesting one out of habit? Do you need ChatGPT to draft an email, or can you get results just as quickly over the phone? (Note to platform and software developers: Providing a giant, easy-to-find AI “off” switch wouldn’t hurt.)Step out of the loop once in a while. Try an AI detox every so often where you do your job without it, just to keep your brain limber.“I can’t deny how useful [AI has] been for research, brainstorming, and managing workloads,” said Danial Qureshi, who runs a virtual marketing and social media management agency in Islamabad, Pakistan. “But lately, I’ve also started to feel like we’re losing something important — our own creativity. Because we rely on AI so much now, I’ve noticed we don’t spend as much time thinking or exploring original ideas from scratch.”Artificial intelligence may be a fact of modern life, but there’s still nothing like the real thing.Pro Tip: Having trouble getting started with AI? Check out Post Tech at Work reporter Danielle Abril’s brilliant articles on developing AI literacy.

Richard Tice has 15-year record of supporting ‘net stupid zero’ initiatives

Firms led by deputy Reform UK leader since 2011 have shown commitment to saving energy and cutting CO2 emissionsUK politics live – latest updatesHe never seems to tire of deriding “net stupid zero”, but Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, has a 15-year business record of support for sustainability and green energy initiatives.The Reform party has made opposition to green energy and net zero part of its policy platform. Its founder, Nigel Farage, has called net zero policies a “lunacy”; the party has called to lift the ban on fracking for fossil gas; and one of the first Reform-led councils, Kent, rescinded last month its declaration of a climate emergency. Continue reading...

He never seems to tire of deriding “net stupid zero”, but Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, has a 15-year business record of support for sustainability and green energy initiatives.The Reform party has made opposition to green energy and net zero part of its policy platform. Its founder, Nigel Farage, has called net zero policies a “lunacy”; the party has called to lift the ban on fracking for fossil gas; and one of the first Reform-led councils, Kent, rescinded last month its declaration of a climate emergency.However, companies led by Tice since 2011 boasted of their commitments to saving energy, cutting CO2 emissions and environmental responsibility. One told investors it had introduced a “green charter” to “mitigate our impact on climate change” and later hired a “full-time sustainability manager” as part of “its focus on energy efficiency and sustainability”.Another said it was “keen to play its part in reducing emissions for cleaner air” and said it had saved “hundreds of tonnes of CO²” by installing solar cells on the rooftops of its properties.A glance at Tice’s account on X reveals contempt for warnings of climate breakdown and efforts to mitigate it. Last year he said: “We are not in climate emergency; nor is there a climate crisis.” In May he stated: “Solar farms are wrong at every level” and insisted they would “destroy food security, destroy jobs [and] destroy property values”.He recently adopted the slogan “net stupid zero”, describing efforts to neutralise the UK’s fossil fuel emissions as “the most costly self-inflicted wound in modern British history”.But Steff Wright, a sustainability entrepreneur and former commercial tenant of Tice, found that statements in the annual reports from CLS Holdings and Quidnet Reit, property companies led by Tice, contradicted his public position.Wright said: “These reports reveal that Tice can clearly see the financial, social and environmental benefits of investing time, money and energy into sustainability focused initiatives.“He is a businessperson, and if he has chosen to be a chief executive of at least two companies who have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions and implement energy-efficient innovations, it’s because there is a business case to do so.”In 2010, the year Tice joined CLS Holdings as deputy chief executive, the company said it was committed to “a responsible and forward-looking approach to environmental issues” by encouraging, among other things, “the use of alternative energy supplies”. The following year, when Tice was promoted to chief executive, the company implemented the green charter and hired a sustainability manager. In 2012, CLS celebrated completing its “zero net emissions” building, adding: “The board acknowledges the group’s impact on society and the environment and … seeks to either both minimise and mitigate them, or to harness them in order to affect positive change.”In the company’s 2013 report, climate change was identified as a “sustainability risk”, requiring “board responsibility”, “dedicated specialist personnel” and “increased due diligence”. The company’s efforts were rewarded in 2014, when it was able to tell shareholders it had exceeded its CO2 emissions reduction targets.Tice launched Quidnet Reit, a property investment company, the following year. When it published its first full accounts, covering 2021, Tice was also chair of Reform UK, and already setting out his stall against “net stupid”. But for his company, fossil fuel emissions remained a priority.The 2021 report stated: “The company is keen to play its part in reducing emissions for cleaner air,” and detailed investments in solar power which “importantly … will reduce CO² emissions by some 70 tonnes per annum”.Quidnet’s emissions reduction efforts continued into 2022 and 2023, with the company stating both years that its solar investments were “saving hundreds of tonnes of CO²” a year. However, after a Guardian report last year covered some of Quidnet’s environmental commitments, no mention was made of them in last year’s report.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionWright said: “Solar initiatives and other energy efficiency schemes have benefited Tice’s property companies whilst he was in charge, but now … there is a political advantage to gain Tice is all too happy to label these schemes as ‘perilous’ for investors.”Tice said critics were “in danger of confusing apples with pears”, insisting the comparisons revealed no contradiction. “I have never said don’t reduce emissions, be they CO2 or other, and where sensible use technology to do so efficiently,” he said.“Solar panels on roofs, selling electricity to tenant[s] underneath are [an] excellent double use of [a] roof and involve no subsidies. Solar farms on farmland is insane, involves large public subsidies and often include dangerous [battery energy storage] systems.”Tice said that when he ran CLS, net zero was not a legal requirement. “My issue has always been the multibillion subsidies, fact that renewables have driven electricity prices higher, made British industries uncompetitive and destroyed hundreds thousand jobs,.“Also in annual reports, because of [the] madness of ESG, so banks and shareholder became obsessed with emissions so companies felt pressured to report on all this. ESG is also mad, stands for Extremely Stupid Garbage, and is now rapidly sensibly being abandoned by many companies and banks.“So my position has been clear and logical and never involved subsidies. Big difference.”

We Must Fight for Our National Parks

The national park system includes crucial spaces that hold our shared history and biodiversity and the promise of a livable future.

In this American moment, there are many concerns and crises. The country’s national park system might not be at the top of everyone’s list, but these parks impact our lives in ways we often don’t realize. We go to national parks to learn new perspectives, find peace and solitude in nature and history, and make cherished memories with our loved ones. By securing these spaces for us, national parks protect the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the food we grow. These public lands hold our history, preserving our culture and the stories that make up our identities and values as Americans. They also provide livelihoods, not only to the rangers who work in them but also to the small communities and businesses that surround them, contributing almost $56 billion annually to the nation’s economy. People are seeking them out now more than ever: A record number visited National Park Service (NPS) sites in 2024. Plus, the NPS is viewed most favorably of all major federal agencies, with the least amount of partisan division in public opinion of the sixteen agencies included in a Pew Research Center report last year. Following the events of November 2024, I naïvely thought (or held on to hope) that due to all of these factors and more, the Trump Administration would ignore Project 2025 and avoid damaging cuts to the agency. How could they come after an agency that is so beloved by such a vast majority of Americans? But if we’ve learned anything over the past nine months, it’s that we must not underestimate the carnage this administration will enthusiastically inflict on people and institutions. The NPS is currently navigating a 24 percent cut to its permanent staff and has lost more than $260 million in funding, in addition to a federal hiring freeze and additional cuts by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Many permanent positions simply can’t be filled during the busiest seasons, and seasonal hiring delays also heavily impact operations. The Trump Administration is also directing NPS units to rewrite history by Executive Order, soliciting visitors to report via QR code “negative” signage and exhibits that in fact explain the complex and nuanced history of our nation’s integral moments of progress. Our national parks are under attack in more ways than this, but what’s happening on the ground? I spent the past two years traveling to twenty-three different NPS sites for graduate research and formerly worked for the service in Glacier National Park in Montana. My research team studies ranger-led public programs in national parks, such as guided hikes, tours, and campground programs. We systematically observe these programs and survey the audience about the experience afterward. I’ve spent a lot of time with frontline interpretive rangers and audiences, and the questions and comments expressing support for these brave public servants have been abundant since January. In March, I observed several visitors to California and Nevada’s Death Valley asking rangers leading programs about the challenges the park is facing, and expressing their dismay at what DOGE was doing to the National Park Service. One question on our survey that audience members fill out asks them to write out what this program inspired them to do. While entering the data, we noticed that many participants wrote comments such as, “Vote against Trump and anyone who doesn’t support the national parks,” and, “Write Congress to stop the terminations of the employees.” Visitors are also flooding the QR code system for reporting signage and exhibits with messages of support for the NPS and irrelevant comments to slow down the review process. Fighting the attacks against the NPS is certainly at the top of park visitors’ minds, and the battle is being brought to the streets as well. Grassroots organizations like the Resistance Rangers and The Wilderness Society have been organizing resistance and resilience, getting the word out through podcasts and social media channels, and rallying protests across the country. Alt National Park Service is another grassroots group of NPS supporters who use social media to motivate action. With more than 4.4 million followers on Facebook, the group uses its platform to spread information and call out outrageous attacks by the Trump Administration. NPS employees are also unionizing through the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and others to protect against additional threats, including at Yosemite National Park and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. They join other NPS units that have unionized in the past. Despite illegal firings, understaffing, burnout, and other daily challenges, brave public servants continue to show up with passion and joy for the stewardship of what environmentalist Wallace Stegner called America’s “best idea.” With a smile, they demonstrate resilience to hundreds of visitors at an information desk, grit their teeth against the pouring rain while conducting plant surveys, and paddle dozens of miles to set nets that remove invasive fish species. They haven’t given up, and neither should we. “I’m incredibly heartened by people stepping up to advocate for national parks,” one NPS worker told me. “Through this work, they’re recognizing the power they have to make a difference when they get organized. It makes me hopeful to see these people finding their voices and learning how to make change, both in parks and in their own communities.” The massive outcry and collective action from those who love public lands have worked in some regards. In June, the Senate removed a provision from Trump’s budget bill that would have sold off millions of acres of public lands, a major win. While the fight is ongoing, there is no shortage of passionate people who believe in the agency’s mission to preserve “unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” The U.S. National Park System represents more than historic buildings, forests, mountains, and rivers. It includes crucial spaces that hold our shared history, biodiversity, and the promise of a livable future. These spaces belong to each and every one of us, not corporations or politicians. Now, more than ever, we need bold voices, fierce protectors, and unwavering advocates to stand up against exploitation and greed. Whether you’re hiking a trail, sharing science, organizing your community, or calling out injustice, you are part of a powerful movement. And you can take action right now. (Personally, I love the 5 Calls app, which helps to streamline daily advocacy by helping constituents contact their representatives about issues that matter to them.) Every action matters. Every voice counts. Together, we can defend the wild and historic places that heal us, ground us, and remind us of what’s worth fighting for.  Mary Grace Larson is an environmental advocate. After working for the National Park Service at Glacier National Park in Montana, she is currently pursuing a master’s degree in forest resources and environmental conservation at Virginia Tech. Read more by Mary Grace Larson October 8, 2025 1:54 PM

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.