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

L.A. County sues oil companies over unplugged oil wells in Inglewood

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court charges four oil companies with failing to properly clean up at least 227 idle or exhausted wells in the oil field near Baldwin Hills.

Los Angeles County is suing four oil and gas companies for allegedly failing to plug idle oil wells in the large Inglewood Oil Field near Baldwin Hills.The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court charges Sentinel Peak Resources California, Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. with failing to properly clean up at least 227 idle and exhausted wells in the oil field. The wells “continue to leak toxic pollutants into the air, land, and water and present unacceptable dangers to human health, safety, and the environment,” the complaint says.The lawsuit aims to force the operators to address dangers posed by the unplugged wells. More than a million people live within five miles of the Inglewood oil field. “We are making it clear to these oil companies that Los Angeles County is done waiting and that we remain unwavering in our commitment to protect residents from the harmful impacts of oil drilling,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the oil field, in a statement. “Plugging idle oil and gas wells — so they no longer emit toxins into communities that have been on the frontlines of environmental injustice for generations — is not only the right thing to do, it’s the law.”Sentinel is the oil field’s current operator, while Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. were past operators. Energy companies often temporarily stop pumping from a well and leave it idle waiting for market conditions to improve. In a statement, a representative for Sentinel Peak said the company is aware of the lawsuit and that the “claims are entirely without merit.”“This suit appears to be an attempt to generate sensationalized publicity rather than adjudicate a legitimate legal matter,” general counsel Erin Gleaton said in an email. “We have full confidence in our position, supported by the facts and our record of regulatory compliance.”Chevron said it does not comment on pending legal matters. The others did not immediately respond to a request for comment.State regulations define “idle wells” as wells that have not produced oil or natural gas for 24 consecutive months, and “exhausted wells” as those that yield an average daily production of two barrels of oil or less. California is home to thousands of such wells, according to the California Department of Conservation. Idle and exhausted wells can continue to emit hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, as well as a methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas. Unplugged wells can also leak oil, benzene, chloride, heavy metals and arsenic into groundwater. Plugging idle and exhausted wells includes removing surface valves and piping, pumping large amount of cement down the hole and reclaiming the surrounding ground. The process can be expensive, averaging an estimated $923,200 per well in Los Angeles County, according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division, which notes that the costs could fall to taxpayers if the defendants do not take action. This 2023 estimate from CalGEM is about three times higher than other parts of the state due to the complexity of sealing wells and remediating the surface in densely populated urban areas. The suit seeks a court order requiring the wells to be properly plugged, as well as abatement for the harms caused by their pollution. It seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each well that is in violation of the law. Residents living near oil fields have long reported adverse health impacts such as respiratory, reproductive and cardiovascular issues. In Los Angeles, many of these risks disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.“The goal of this lawsuit is to force these oil companies to clean up their mess and stop business practices that disproportionately impact people of color living near these oil wells,” County Counsel Dawyn Harrison said in a statement. “My office is determined to achieve environmental justice for communities impacted by these oil wells and to prevent taxpayers from being stuck with a huge cleanup bill.”The lawsuit is part of L.A. County’s larger effort to phase out oil drilling, including a high-profile ordinance that sought to ban new oils wells and even require existing ones to stop production within 20 years. Oil companies successfully challenged it and it was blocked in 2024. Rita Kampalath, the county’s chief sustainability officer, said the county remains “dedicated to moving toward a fossil-fuel free L.A. County.”“This lawsuit demonstrates the County’s commitment to realizing our sustainability goals by addressing the impacts of the fossil fuel industry on frontline communities and the environment,” Kampalath said.

California’s last nuclear power plant faces renewed scrutiny as it gains latest permit

A state regulator is requiring California’s last nuclear power plant to conserve 4,000 acres of surrounding land to keep operating until 2030.

In summary A state regulator is requiring California’s last nuclear power plant to conserve 4,000 acres of surrounding land to keep operating until 2030. California’s last nuclear power plant overcame a regulatory hurdle on Thursday when the California Coastal Commission voted to approve keeping the plant open for at least five years. It was one of the final obstacles the controversial Diablo Canyon Power Plant had to clear to continue operating amid renewed opposition. The decision was conditioned on a plan that would require Pacific Gas & Electric, which owns the plant, to conserve about 4,000 acres of land on its property. That would prevent it from ever being developed for commercial or residential use. The plant, located along the San Luis Obispo shoreline, now awaits federal approval for a 20-year relicensing permit. “I don’t think, unfortunately, that anything will be happening to Diablo Canyon soon,” due to the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence, Commissioner Jaime Lee said before voting to approve the permit. Nine of the 12 voting members approved the plan.  The deliberations reignited decades-old concerns about the dangers of nuclear power and its place in the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources. Diablo Canyon is the state’s single-largest energy source, providing nearly 10% of all California electricity. Defeated in their earlier attempts to shut the plant, critics of Diablo Canyon used months of Coastal Commission hearings as one of their last opportunities to vocalize their disdain for the facility. Some Democratic lawmakers supported the plant but pushed for PG&E to find more ways to protect the environment. Sen. John Laird, Democrat of San Luis Obispo County and former secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said on Thursday he approved of the new plan but pushed the commission to require the utility to conserve even more of its total 12,000 surrounding acres. “If what comes out of this is the path for preservation for 8,000 acres of land, that is a remarkable victory,” Laird said. Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose district encompasses the plant, had also urged the commission in a letter to approve a permit “once it contains strong mitigation measures that reflect the values and needs of the surrounding tribal and local communities who depend on our coastal regions for environmental health, biodiversity and economic vitality.”  A long history of controversy Founded in 1985, the plant’s striking concrete domes sit along the Pacific coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The facility draws in 2 million gallons of water from the ocean every day to cool its systems  And it has remained shrouded in controversy since its construction 40 years ago. Environmentalists point to the damage it causes to marine life, killing what the Coastal Commission estimates are 2 billion larval fish a year. The commissioners on Thursday were not deciding whether to allow the plant to stay open but were weighing how best to lessen the environmental impacts of its operation. A 2022 state law forced the plant to stay open for five more years past its planned 2025 closure date, which could have led to significant political blowback against the Coastal Commission if it had rejected the permit. Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. John Laird Democrat, State Senate, District 17 (Santa Cruz) Dawn Addis Democrat, State Assembly, District 30 (San Luis Obispo) Gov. Gavin Newsom reversed a 2016 agreement made between environmental groups and worker unions to close the plant after the state faced a series of climate disasters that spurred energy blackouts. Popular sentiment toward nuclear energy has also continued to grow more supportive as states across the country consider revitalizing dormant and aging nuclear plants to fulfill ever-increasing energy demand needs. The 2022 law authorized a $1.4 billion loan to be paid back with federal loans or profits. Groups such as the Environmental Defense Center and Mothers for Peace opposed the permit outright, citing concerns about radioactive waste, which can persist for centuries, and its cost to taxpayers. “We maintain that any extension of Diablo is unnecessary,” and that its continued operations could slow the development of solar and wind energy, Jeremy Frankel, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center told the commission Thursday.  The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved $723 million in ratepayer funds toward Diablo Canyon’s operating costs this year. It was the first time rate hikes were spread to ratepayers of other utilities such as Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric and was authorized by lawmakers because the plant provides energy to the entire state. How the plant will be funded has also garnered scrutiny in the years since Newsom worked to keep it open. Last year, the Legislature nearly canceled a $400 million loan to help finance it. As much as $588 million is unlikely to come back due to insufficient federal funding and projected profits, CalMatters has reported. Proponents of the plant pointed to its reliability, carbon-free pollution and the thousands of jobs it has created. Business advocacy groups emphasized their support for the plant as boosting the economy.  “It is an economic lifeline that helps keep our communities strong and competitive,” Dora Westerlund, president of the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation, said at a November meeting.

Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson

Heat deaths here have soared 650% in the past decade. Addressing inequality will save lives. The post Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson appeared first on The Revelator.

Residents of Tucson all know the relief of stepping into the shade on a hot desert afternoon. In Tucson, where summer temperatures often soar above 110 degrees, shade can feel like a lifeline. Yet in too many parts of our city, especially on the Southside, shade is scarce. Concrete and gravel dominate yards, streets, and gathering places, while tree canopy coverage remains limited. For residents who rely on walking and public transit, the absence of shade turns a simple errand into a serious health risk. In 2023 alone there were 990 heat-related deaths in the state of Arizona. Compared to a decade ago, this is a 650% increase in the number of preventable fatalities attributable to extreme heat exposure. This risk is compounded by the heat records being broken in the spring and fall, exacerbating the risk of heat exposure. We’re a group of graduate students in the field of public health at the University of Arizona who have learned how infrastructure directly affects health outcomes. Living, working, and studying in Tucson has made us aware of how urban planning can either protect or endanger communities. Affluent neighborhoods often enjoy tree-lined streets and shaded bus stops, while historically marginalized communities endure relentless sun exposure. This is not just an inconvenience; it’s an environmental justice problem that compounds existing health disparities. Tucson’s Million Trees initiative has made significant strides thanks to the local leadership and a $5 million federal grant. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have halted this progress and more initiatives in the city. Cuts to diversity and equity programs have led to the cancellation of a $75 million urban forestry grant nationwide, potentially limiting future support for cities like Tucson. On top of that, efforts to boost domestic timber production and recent layoffs in the U.S. Forest Service risk undermining tree maintenance and climate resilience. As Tucson faces increasingly severe summer heat, communities must look beyond temporary relief measures to sustainable solutions. Water stations and cooling centers have become first-line defenses, yet they operate under limited hours, require maintenance, and often go underutilized due to distance or lack of public awareness. In contrast, expanding shade through canopy trees and permanent shade structures provides passive, continuously available cooling with minimal energy demand. Funding for these projects is already supported by the city’s Green Infrastructure Fee on monthly water bills, making the investment fiscally feasible. Trees not only reduce ambient temperatures but also filter air pollutants, mitigate stormwater runoff, and enhance community well-being. Although the initial cost may seem significant, the long-term public health gains, reduced energy use, and environmental resilience far outweigh the expense. For Tucson’s future, shade must be recognized as critical infrastructure. Increased community involvement is crucial for the success of shade equity initiatives. We must empower residents to shape their environment to move beyond top-down approaches.   This can be achieved through several avenues. First we must educate residents about shade equity through accessible public awareness campaigns that highlight the tangible benefits of shade and the very real risks of heat exposure. Residents must also be directly involved in the shade infrastructure projects’ planning and design. This can be accomplished through inclusive workshops, user-friendly surveys, and the establishment of representative community advisory boards. We should create robust volunteer programs that incentivize residents to participate in tree planting, shade structure maintenance, and sustained community outreach. Genuine partnerships between government agencies, nonprofit organizations, local businesses, schools, and local artists are key to leveraging diverse resources and expertise. Perhaps most importantly, we must equip and encourage residents to become active advocates for shade equity policies and increased funding at the local and state levels by organizing community meetings and town halls and supporting the development and implementation of comprehensive shade master plans that prioritize the equitable distribution of shade resources as a matter of fundamental justice. Cities across Arizona — like Phoenix, Yuma, and Nogales — face similar patterns of shade inequity, and this issue extends nationwide. From Los Angeles to Atlanta, low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, and unhoused folks consistently have fewer trees and less shade infrastructure. Internationally, cities in the Global South are also grappling with rising temperatures but lack adequate cooling solutions. This puts the unhoused populations at risk of heat-related illness and increased risk of mortality, especially in cities like Tucson. As urban areas everywhere adapt to the climate crisis, equitable shade must be part of the conversation around sustainable, healthy city design. And as climate change intensifies and heat waves grow more deadly, access to shade must be recognized as a basic public health need. Even as the Trump administration threatens to cut funding from climate initiatives, Tucson’s commitment remains firm. Shade must be treated as essential infrastructure, not a luxury. With every tree planted creating shaded space, we take a hopeful step toward a more livable Tucson — and other overheated cities across the planet. Previously in The Revelator: As Heat Deaths Rise, Planting Trees Is Part of the Solution The post Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson appeared first on The Revelator.

OpenAI’s Secrets are Revealed in Empire of AI

On our 2025 Best Nonfiction of the Year list, Karen Hao’s investigation of artificial intelligence reveals how the AI future is still in our hands

Technology reporter Karen Hao started reporting on artificial intelligence in 2018, before ChatGPT was introduced, and is one of the few journalists to gain access to the inner world of the chatbot’s creator, OpenAI. In her book Empire of AI, Hao outlines the rise of the controversial company.In her research, Hao spoke to OpenAI leaders, scientists and entry-level workers around the globe who are shaping the development of AI. She explores its potential for scientific discovery and its impacts on the environment, as well as the divisive quest to create a machine that can rival human smarts through artificial general intelligence (AGI).Scientific American spoke with Hao about her deep reporting on AI, Sam Altman’s potential place in AI’s future and the ways the technology might continue to change the world.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.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]How realistic is the goal of artificial general intelligence (AGI)?There is no scientific consensus around what intelligence is, so AI and AGI are inherently unmoored concepts. This is helpful for deflating the hype of Silicon Valley when they say AGI is around the corner, and it’s also helpful in recognizing that the lack of predetermination around what AI is and what it should do leaves plenty of room for everyone.You argue that we should be thinking about AI in terms of empires and colonialism. Can you explain why?I call companies like OpenAI empires both because of the sheer magnitude at which they are operating and the controlling influence they’ve developed—also the tactics for how they’ve accumulated an enormous amount of economic and political power. They amass that power through the dispossession of the majority of the rest of the world.There’s also this huge ideological component to the current AI industry. This quest for an artificial general intelligence is a faith-based idea. It's not a scientific idea. It is this quasi-religious notion that if we continue down a particular path of AI development, somehow a kind of AI god is going to emerge that will solve all of humanity's problems. Colonialism is the fusion of capitalism and ideology, so there’s just a multitude of parallels between the empires of old and the empires of AI.There’s also a parallel in how they both cause environmental destruction. Which environmental impacts of AI are most concerning?There are just so many intersecting crises that the AI industry’s path of development is exacerbating. One, of course, is the energy crisis. Sam Altman announced he wants to see 250 gigawatts of data-center capacity laid by 2033 just for his company. New York City [uses] on average 5.5 gigawatts [per day]. Altman has estimated that this would cost around $10 trillion —where is he going to get that money? Who knows.But if that were to come to pass, the primary energy sources would be fossil fuels. Business Insider had an investigation earlier this year that found that utilities are “torpedo[ing]” their renewable-energy goals in order to service the data-center demand. So we are seeing natural gas plants and coal plants having their lives extended. That’s not just pumping emissions into the atmosphere; it’s also pumping air pollution into communities.So the question is: How long are we going to deal with the actual harms and hold out for the speculative possibility that maybe, at the end of the road, it’s all going to be fine? There was a survey earlier this year that found that [roughly] 75 percent of long-standing AI researchers who are not in the pocket of industry do not think we are on the path to an artificial general intelligence. We should not be using a tiny possibility on the far-off horizon that is not even scientifically backed to justify an extraordinary and irreversible set of damages that are occurring right now.Do you think Sam Altman has lied about OpenAI’s abilities, or has he just fallen for his own marketing?It’s a great question. The thing that’s complex about OpenAI, that surprised me the most when I was reporting, is that there are quasi-religious movements that have developed around ideas like “AGI could solve all of humanity’s problems” or “AGI could kill everyone.” It is really hard to figure out whether Altman himself is a believer or whether he has just found it to be politically savvy to leverage these beliefs.You did a lot of reporting on the workers helping to make this AI revolution happen. What did you find?I traveled to Kenya to meet with workers that OpenAI had contracted, as well as workers being contracted by the rest of the AI industry. What OpenAI wanted them to do was to help build a content moderation filter for the company’s GPT models. At the time they were trying to expand their commercialization efforts, and they realized that if you put text-generation models that can generate anything into the hands of millions of people, you’re going to come up with a problem because it could end up spewing racist, toxic hate speech at users, and it would become a huge PR crisis.For the workers, that meant they had to wade through some of the worst content on the Internet, as well as content where OpenAI was prompting its own AI models to imagine the worst content on the Internet to provide a more diverse and comprehensive set of examples to these workers. These workers suffered the same kinds of psychological traumas that content moderators of the social media era suffered.I also spoke with the workers that were on a different part of the human labor supply chain in reinforcement learning from human feedback. This is a thing that many companies have adopted where tens of thousands of workers have to teach the model what is a good answer when a user chats with the chatbot.One woman I spoke to, Winnie, worked for this platform called Remotasks, which is the backend for Scale AI, one of the primary contractors of reinforcement learning from human feedback. The content that she was working with was not necessarily traumatic in and of itself, but the conditions under which she was working were deeply exploitative: she never knew who she was working for, and she also never knew when the tasks would arrive. When I spoke to her, she had already been waiting months for a task to arrive, and when those tasks arrived, she would work for 22 hours straight in a day to just try and earn as much money as possible to ultimately feed her kids.This is the lifeblood of the AI industry, and yet these workers see absolutely none of the economic value that they’re generating for these companies.Some people worry AI could surpass human intelligence and take over the world. Is this a risk you fear?I don’t believe that AI will ultimately develop some kind of agency of its own, and I don’t think that it’s worth engaging in a project that is attempting to develop agentic systems that take agency away from people.What I see as a much more hopeful vision of an AI future is returning back to developing AI models and AI systems that support, rather than supplant, humans. And one of the things that I’m really bullish about is specialized AI models for solving particular challenges that we need to overcome as a society.One of the examples that I often give is of DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which is also a specialized deep-learning tool that was trained on a relatively modest number of computer chips to accurately predict the protein-folding structures from a sequence of amino acids. [Its developers] won the Nobel Prize [in] Chemistry last year. These are the types of AI systems that I think we should be putting our energy, time and talent into building.Are there other books on this subject you read while writing this book or have enjoyed recently that you can recommend to me?I’d recommend Rebecca Solnit’s Hope in the Dark, which I read after my book published. It may not seem directly related, but it very much is. Solnit makes the case for human agency—she urges people to remember that we co-create the future through our individual and collective action. That is also the greatest message I want people to take away from my book. Empires of AI are not inevitable—and the alternative path forward is in our hands.

Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio

Nayara Resorts, known for its high-end hotels and focus on green practices, has revealed plans for a new property in Manuel Antonio. The beach resort aims to open in mid- to late 2027 and will create about 300 direct jobs. For those familiar with the area, the site sits where the Barba Roja restaurant once […] The post Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Nayara Resorts, known for its high-end hotels and focus on green practices, has revealed plans for a new property in Manuel Antonio. The beach resort aims to open in mid- to late 2027 and will create about 300 direct jobs. For those familiar with the area, the site sits where the Barba Roja restaurant once stood. Nayara bought the land and has woven environmental standards into every step of design and planning. Blake May, the project director, noted that the company holds all required permits and has worked with authorities to meet rules on protected zones and coastal setbacks. Construction will blend with the surroundings, keeping trees, palms, and bamboo in the layout. Rooms will use natural airflow to cut down on air conditioning. Bars will have plant-covered roofs to lower emissions and clean the air. The resort will also run its own system to turn wastewater into reusable water for gardens. Before any building starts, Nayara hired a soil expert to protect the ground during demolition. Trees on the property get special attention too. The team is studying species to decide which stay in place and which move elsewhere for safety. This fits Nayara’s track record, like at their Tented Camp in La Fortuna, where they turned old pasture into forest by planting over 40,000 native trees and plants. Beyond the environment, Nayara commits to local people. They plan to share updates on progress, hire from the area for building and running the hotel, and buy from nearby businesses. Demolition of the old restaurant is in progress, with full construction set to begin early next year. This move grows Nayara’s footprint in Costa Rica, where they already run three spots in La Fortuna: Gardens, Springs, and Tented Camp. The new hotel marks their first push into the Pacific coast, drawing on their model of luxury tied to nature. Locals in the area, see promise in the jobs and tourism boost, as Manuel Antonio draws visitors for its parks and beaches. Nayara’s approach could set an example for other developments in the area. The post Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

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.