Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • The waves have been spotted at several beaches
    Blue waves glow as the tide rolls to shore on a beach with a lifeguard station.
    The scene on Manhattan Beach in April 2020. Bioluminescence has been spotted more recently in the waters off California in San Diego and the Bay areas.

    Topline:

    In recent weeks, bioluminescent blue waves have been spotted along the Orange County coast in Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, further south in Oceanside.

    What are they: The glowing blue waves are caused by a species of plankton called dinoflagellates, which swim in clusters causing a red tide, but when disturbed, they emit the glittering flashes of light.

    Why now: The late rains, coupled with the high summer temperatures, created a “layered situation in the ocean” where the surface and the deep are separated by a strong temperature change, creating the optimum temperatures for the tiny organisms to thrive.

    Is it safe: For humans, yes. For marine life, not so much. After the 2020 red tide in San Diego, the dying plankton starved the water of oxygen, leading to mass fish kill offs.

    No tickets to the Beyoncé concert? Can't afford to see Lionel Messi this weekend? Well there's a show happening at the beach and it's free — the bioluminescent blue waves are back.

    In recent weeks, they’ve been spotted along the Orange County coast in Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, further south in Oceanside and even in the Bay Area. The glowing blue waves are caused by a species of plankton called dinoflagellates, which swim in clusters causing a red tide, but when disturbed, they emit the glittering flashes of light.

    Anne Teresa Baker, a mother of four in Lakewood, has spent the decades chasing the “Windex blue” waves. Twenty years ago, she read about the phenomenon in the news and took her children to Seal Beach to see the bioluminescence.

    “We were just elated because it was just magical,” she said.

    How to know it's here

    The family spent that summer going to different points of Southern California’s coast looking for the blue waves, or as Baker called it: “Our summer of chasing bioluminescence.”

    Since then, she is always looking to rope in a family member to go on a “bio hunt” with her. When she heard that the dinoflaggetas had hit Orange County beaches once again, she headed to Laguna Beach with her husband on Thursday night.

    They didn’t find any. Now, she hopes to convince her husband to spend a few hours at the Oceanside beach on Labor Day weekend after a wedding to look for the neon blue waves.

    As a mother of four, Baker said, she can’t often go “beachcombing at night” so she relies on social media platforms, like photographer Patrick Coyne’s page, to keep up to date on sightings.

    “The best way to predict whether you are gonna see bioluminescence at the beach is to check your social media,” said Drew Lucas, an associate professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

    Social media, he said, has brought awareness to the bioluminescent red tide that has been documented in Southern California for over 100 years.

    How the blue waves form

    Lucas and a team of researchers recently published a study that shows these tiny organisms are able to discolor the water and create the shimmering electric blue phenomenon because of their “incredible swimming ability.”

    Calling them the “Michael Phelps of the plankton world,” Lucas said the tiny organisms — “smaller than the width of a human hair” — swim to the ocean surface to use sunlight for energy and then swim down to the ocean bed at night to source vital nutrients to grow and reproduce.

    This allows the plankton to grow in number giving rise to the blue waves that people love. In 2020, Lucas said his team of researchers measured 1 million cells per millimeter of seawater.

    The current levels of bioluminescence in the water is low compared to the 2020 range, he said. What’s happening now is “more in the sort of typical change.”

    The late rains, coupled with the high summer temperatures, created a “layered situation in the ocean” where the surface and the deep are separated by a strong temperature change, creating the optimum temperatures for these organisms to thrive.

    Is it safe?

    For humans, yes. For marine life, not so much.

    While the red tide is typically not toxic to people, Lucas said the bioluminescence can have “a pretty significant impact” on marine life. After the 2020 red tide in San Diego, the dying plankton starved the water of oxygen, leading to mass fish kill offs.

  • Candidates target Steyer and Becerra
    Three men and one woman stand on a stage behind podiums. Behind them is a large banner that reads "CBS California The Governor's Debate."
    The gubernatorial candidates during a debate hosted by CBS LA at Pomona College in Claremont, on April 28, 2026.

    Topline:

    Six leading Democratic candidates for governor were seeking a breakout moment Tuesday night in a chaotic, combative and often hard-to-follow CBS debate at Pomona College, prompting former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter to declare at one point that “this is worse than my teenagers at dinner.”

    The Democratic field: The Democrats largely failed to differentiate themselves as they tackled questions on the cost of living, health care, education, housing and energy, struggling to promote new policies to address the crushing cost of living. They were careful not to attack the liberal policies of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has declined to endorse any of them.

    Where the candidates agreed — and disagreed: All eight said they support forcing homeless residents who refuse repeated shelter offers into mandated mental health treatment facilities. Mahan and Thurmond agreed with Republicans Bianco and Steve Hilton that the state gas tax should be suspended; Becerra, Porter, Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa disagreed. On energy, Porter agreed with Mahan and Villaraigosa that the state should aim to keep oil refineries open amid skyrocketing gas prices while working toward greater electrification, while Steyer called for more taxes, on oil industry profits. Hilton, who has promised to eliminate many climate goals to lower the price of gas, did not say what he would do to support clean energy

    Six leading Democratic candidates for governor were seeking a breakout moment Tuesday night in a race that has been dominated by its lack of certainty, with two Republican candidates frequently in the lead.

    None of them appeared to find one in a chaotic, combative and often hard-to-follow CBS debate at Pomona College, prompting former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter to declare at one point that “this is worse than my teenagers at dinner.”

    With less than a week before ballots are mailed to voters, though, the targets were clear: Billionaire Tom Steyer, who has led fellow Democrats in polling and has already spent at least $132 million of his own money on the race; and Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary who has had a sudden surge in momentum since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out amid allegations of sexual assault.

    Porter, once a rising national progressive star, got in a dig at Steyer, who has consolidated support among many of the party’s most left-wing activists. She criticized the fortune he made in part by investing in fossil fuels when he tried to tout his climate-friendly credentials and policy of “making polluters pay.” Steyer has said that he subsequently divested from those investments and devoted himself to addressing climate change.

    “How about profiteers pay?” Porter asked pointedly.

    Becerra, meanwhile, was criticized by moderate Democratic San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan for his mixed record as former President Joe Biden’s health secretary and for bristling when pressed for policy specifics. At one point, Becerra argued with one of the five debate moderators over the legality of his proposal to call a state of emergency to freeze home insurance rates.

    Becerra entered the debate fresh off a recent boost in polling and fundraising, buoyed by an army of online influencers whose posts adviser Michael Bustamante said are “all organic.” The candidate was eager to spar with his competitors, but his newfound spotlight has also come with scrutiny about his record on immigration and health.

    Progressives and Steyer’s campaign have also highlighted Becerra’s support from companies like Chevron and his handling of an influx of unaccompanied migrant children as Biden’s health secretary. A 2023 New York Times investigation found that those children — whom Becerra had pressured officials to process and place as if they were running an “assembly line” — ended up in dangerous child labor jobs.

    Becerra later dismissed the criticism as a “MAGA talking point” and said the Department of Homeland Security was responsible for the child labor.

    “We did everything we could,” he said.

    Republican Chad Bianco, the ornery Riverside County sheriff with a penchant for the conspiratorial, was also on the offensive Tuesday night. He leapt to attack Democratic policies wholesale as “lies” whenever he could. He drew groans from the audience when he interrupted Becerra to state, falsely, that COVID-19 vaccines distributed under Biden had “poisoned” millions of Americans.

    His frequent broadsides at state regulations prompted Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond to attack Bianco’s recent unprecedented seizure of 650,000 ballots in Riverside County.

    Little to differentiate between Democrats

    But the Democrats largely failed to differentiate themselves as they tackled questions on the cost of living, health care, education, housing and energy, struggling to promote new policies to address the crushing cost of living. They were careful not to attack the liberal policies of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has declined to endorse any of them.

    Even getting a moment in the spotlight was hard in a debate format that seemed to jump from subject to subject and in which candidates frequently interrupted one another.

    “They’re all wrong,” Mahan said, as he tried to walk the line between the Republicans supporting a Trump tax policy that will cut up to 2 million people from public health coverage and Democrats calling for publicly funded single-payer health care estimated to cost $392 billion in California.

    But Mahan didn’t offer much of an alternative, saying the answer was “incentivizing actual health.”

    All eight said they support forcing homeless residents who refuse repeated shelter offers into mandated mental health treatment facilities. Mahan and Thurmond agreed with Republicans Bianco and Steve Hilton that the state gas tax should be suspended; Becerra, Porter, Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa disagreed.

    On energy, Porter agreed with Mahan and Villaraigosa that the state should aim to keep oil refineries open amid skyrocketing gas prices while working toward greater electrification, while Steyer called for more taxes, on oil industry profits. Hilton, who has promised to eliminate many climate goals to lower the price of gas, did not say what he would do to support clean energy. He has dominated most polling in the governor’s race.

    “I think I’m more confused on who to vote for now than ever,” said Pomona College politics student Kloi Ogans after the debate. “So I have a lot more researching to do.”

    As part of the debate, Ogans was invited to ask the candidates about rebuilding housing in California. She said after the debate that young voters are worried about affordability and concerned about Trump’s immigration enforcement sweeps. She particularly wanted to hear from Becerra and Porter, but the sparring among candidates made her disinterested.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

  • Sponsored message
  • The measure targeted repeat theft, drug offenders
    The Jail complex in downtown Los Angeles
    The jail complex in downtown Los Angeles

    Topline:

    Proposition 36 is getting mixed reviews nearly 18 months after it was passed. Supporters say it has been effective in punishing repeat offenders, particularly for drug crimes and petty theft. Critics say it targets people who commit "crimes of poverty" and it has failed to provide adequate treatment for those who need it.

    The backstory: Prop. 36, which passed in November 2024, promised California voters a new era of “mass treatment” for people struggling with addiction and a crackdown on repeat petty thieves amid a spike in retail theft.

    Hot debate: The debate around the measure, called “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” was fueled in part by a series of videotaped smash-and-grab robberies splashed across local TV news and images of unhoused residents shooting up drugs in the streets.

    The numbers: In 2025, California prosecutors filed more than 19,000 Prop. 36 felony drug cases and more than 15,500 felony theft cases, according to a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice released in March.

    Jail population: In Los Angeles County alone, there are about 1,150 individuals in jail because of Prop. 36 — about a 9% increase in the jail population, according to county Public Defender Ricardo Garcia.

    Proposition 36, which passed in November 2024, promised California voters a new era of “mass treatment” for people struggling with addiction and a crackdown on repeat petty thieves amid a spike in retail theft.

    The debate around the measure, called “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” was fueled in part by a series of videotaped smash-and-grab robberies splashed across local TV news and images of unhoused residents shooting up drugs in the streets.

    Voters signaled they wanted a crackdown and they approved Prop. 36 with nearly 70% casting ballots in favor of it.

    A little more than a year later, the measure is getting mixed reviews.

    Supporters say it's been effective in holding repeat offenders accountable. Critics say it's been a return to mass incarceration without the promised treatment for people with substance abuse.

    How Prop. 36 works

    Prop. 36 stiffened penalties for repeat theft and drug offenders.

    Here’s how the measure works: If you have been convicted of two misdemeanor thefts of $950 or less, prosecutors have the option of charging your third petty theft as a felony, which carries up to a three-year prison term.

    Before Prop. 36, petty theft was a misdemeanor, regardless of how many times you did it.

    Make It Make Sense

    This is part of a weeklong series from our elections newsletter, Make It Make Sense, in which we check in on the people and measures that were elected in 2024. Sign up for the newsletter here.

    When it comes to drug offenses under Prop 36, if you have been convicted of two possessions of a small amount of hard drugs (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine), prosecutors have the option of charging your third possession as a felony. But you don’t have to go to prison if you agree to go into drug treatment.

    In 2025, California prosecutors filed more than 19,000 Prop. 36 felony drug cases and more than 15,500 felony theft cases, according to a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice released in March. Most people were released on bail pending the outcome of their case.

    Nearly 900 Californians have been sent to state prison under Prop. 36, since it went into effect in December 2024. County jail populations have grown by nearly 3,000 since the measure passed, driven by a surge in felony bookings of people who have not yet been sentenced.

    In Los Angeles County alone, there are about 1,150 individuals in jail because of Prop. 36 — about a 9% increase in the jail population, according to county Public Defender Ricardo Garcia. The surge in defendants is adding caseloads to his already overworked attorneys, he said.

    The same is happening across the state.

    “This is really compounding the workload crisis,” said Kate Chatfield, executive director of the California Public Defenders Association.

    The data represents a reversal of yearslong declines in incarceration, and they are occurring amid all-time lows in California’s crime rate.

    “It really is a return to mass incarceration,” Chatfield argued.

    Black people overrepresented

    Black people are dramatically overrepresented in Prop. 36 charges, according to the study. In Contra Costa County, for example, Black residents account for more than half of all Proposition 36 theft charges, despite making up less than one-tenth of the population.

    Prosecutors say the law has been effective.

    “It’s been a valuable tool to go after chronic and repeat thieves,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said.

    Hochman said his office brought more than 3,300 Prop. 36 felony cases against people charged with their third petty theft in 2025.

    He said his office brought over 1,900 felony cases against people charged with their third possession of hard drugs.

    He said he couldn’t immediately provide numbers on how many of the drug defendants opted for rehabilitation over prison.

    Statewide, fewer than 1 in 5 people arrested on Prop. 36 drug charges have been ordered to treatment, and fewer than 1 in 100 have completed a program, according to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice study.

    Lack of treatment beds

    One reason for the low treatment numbers is a scarcity of treatment beds throughout the state.

    “There just isn’t enough treatment to meet the need,” said the center’s Maureen Washburn. “People aren’t getting connected to treatment. They aren’t succeeding in treatment programs once they’re in them.”

    Treatment, a major promise of Prop. 36, has been an “abject failure,” she said.

    Hochman agreed treatment is lacking.

    “We do not have anywhere close to enough drug treatment and mental illness beds in a county of 10 million people,” he said.

    The district attorney argued the state needs to provide more funding for treatment beds.

    “Sacramento has not funded at any meaningful level,” he said.

    In a March letter to the chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, the co-author of Prop. 36 — Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — said at least $400 million dollars in new funding is needed for treatment facilities.

    “I think spending taxpayer dollars on drug treatment — both in the short term and in the long term — is a smart way to address public safety issues,” Umberg told LAist.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has requested in his budget $100 million dollars for treatment over three years.

    But Chatfield said people facing Prop. 36 charges shouldn't be locked up in the first place. Drug offenses should be handled as a public health issue, she argued.

    “Even the low level misdemeanors for theft are economic crimes,” she said. “These are crimes of poverty.”

    Unequal application of Prop. 36

    In addition to a paucity of treatment beds, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice study found charging rates vary dramatically by county. Orange County alone accounted for nearly 20% of Prop. 36 drug charges and 40% of theft convictions in 2025 despite representing just 8% of the state’s population.

    “This inconsistency across counties exacerbates California’s longstanding problem of providing differing ”justice by geography,” the report stated.

    Empirical evidence of the effect of Prop. 36 on the crime rate is lacking. But Umberg said he believes it has reduced retail theft.

    “I have been told by a huge number of folks in law enforcement and also in the business community — particularly in the retail community — that it has had an effect on retail theft,” Umberg said.

    Hochman said it's too early to tell if people are being deterred by Proposition 36.

    “We’re waiting on statistics that we’ll probably get sometime this year to see if the deterrent aspect is also working — that we actually have fewer people going ahead and committing these crimes,” Hochman said.

    But crime was on the way down before Proposition 36 passed. Violent crime fell 6% and property crime dropped 8.4% in California in 2024 — the year Prop. 36 passed.

    Chatfield of the California Public Defenders Association maintains voters were “sold a bill of goods” on the measure.

    “They were told this was about homelessness. They were told this was about treatment. And it absolutely was not," she said. "It was about increasing incarceration.”

  • Calming with screens linked to behavior issues
     The biggest predictor of screen time for kids is how much their parents use their devices, a new study finds.
    The study found that higher device use to calm or distract a child was linked to more behavior problems and higher maternal stress.

    Topline:

    Using a device to calm a small child? A new study out of UC Irvine finds that’s linked to more behavioral problems.

    What’s new: The study, published in Developmental Psychology, found higher device use was linked to more behavior issues among toddlers, like biting or hitting or kicking — as well as higher parental stress.

    The backstory: The study followed more than 200 families in Orange County and Washington, D.C., over time, from when a child was 9 months old to 2.5 years old.

    Why it matters: Stephanie Reich, a professor of education, said devices can be replacing an important opportunity to learn how to self-regulate. “If they don’t have that skill, they then might act out more, have more behavior problems, which makes parenting more stressful — which probably makes it more likely they get devices again,” she said.

    Using a tablet or TV to calm a fussy child might work in the short-term, but a new study out of UC Irvine finds it could backfire later.

    The study, published in Developmental Psychology, found that higher device use was linked to more behavior issues among toddlers, like biting or hitting or kicking — as well as more parental stress.

    The study followed more than 200 families in Orange County and Washington, D.C., over time, from when a child was 9 months old to 2-and-a-half years old.

    “Emotion regulation skills — like their own ability to calm and distract themselves — [they] might be being displaced by devices instead,” said Stephanie Reich, professor of education at UC Irvine. “And if [kids] don't have that skill, they might act out more, have more behavior problems.”

    More behavioral problems in turn can make parenting more stressful, which means it’ll make it more likely that kids get devices again, creating a cycle parents can get stuck in, Reich said.

    The study also found that mothers experienced more stress later when using devices to distract their children, but that wasn’t the experience for fathers. While higher device use was linked to more behavior problems, fathers did not feel the level of stress as much as mothers.

    When mothers were stressed, they were more likely to use devices, Reich said. She couldn’t definitively explain why there was a difference between parents, but said that in general, parenting work falls more to mothers.

    “They just might be more overwhelmed, or taking on more than fathers when it comes to day-to-day parenting,” she said.

    The study notes the type of parent-child interactions that might be replaced by devices, including picking them up, holding and rocking them, and talking to them calmly and reminding them to breathe.

    “All of these types of interactions, from physical touch to language use to breathing tips for calming, offer the developing child opportunities to cultivate their self-regulatory skills,” the authors wrote.

  • Federal judge says she needs more time to decide
    Behind a chain link fence, two men with medium skin tone stand, with shirts covering their heads, one of them pointing to somewhere outside the fence.
    Immigration advocates say conditions at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center are inhumane.

    Topline:

    A federal judge is weighing whether to grant a temporary court order to give immediate relief to immigrants detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

    The backstory: Immigrants rights groups and a private firm filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security in January. They allege that the approximately 2,000 people currently held at the Adelanto complex are subject to inhumane treatment.

    Why it matters: On top of squalid conditions, the lawsuit alleges that detainees at Adelanto are fed cold, unsanitary food and expected to drink dirty water. They also say detainees must often wait several months to see a doctor and that solitary confinement is used to retaliate against those who speak out against these conditions and to isolate detainees who are experiencing mental health crises. Since last September, at least four people have died while detained in this facility.

    What the feds say: The federal government has asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. Pushkal Mishra, representing ICE and DHS, said “between the government and the alleged injury are the independent, discretionary, uncertain and speculative day-to-day activities of a third party.” He argued that The GEO Group, a private prison operator that runs the Adelanto facility, is the "proper defendant" in the case.

    What's next: Judge Sunshine Sykes said she’ll need more time to decide. In addition to the preliminary injunction, she is also navigating the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case and a motion by the plaintiffs to make this a class action lawsuit, meaning the court’s outcome would apply to all Adelanto detainees.

    A federal judge said she’ll need more time to decide whether to grant a temporary court order to give immigrants detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center immediate relief.

    Immigrants rights groups and a private firm filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security in January. They allege that the approximately 2,000 people currently held at the Adelanto complex are subject to inhumane treatment.

    On top of squalid conditions, plaintiffs say detainees are fed cold, unsanitary food and expected to drink dirty water. They also allege detainees must often wait several months to see a doctor, if they ever do.

    “The conditions in which these non-citizens are being held in the Adelanto detention facility, as alleged in the petition, are certainly concerning,” said Judge Sunshine Sykes at a hearing Tuesday for the Central District of California. “I think that each of us would never want to be in that position.”

    Still, Sykes said she was tentatively inclined to “deny the motion [for a preliminary injunction] without prejudice or to allow plaintiffs to withdraw the motion and refile it,” which would give the immigrants rights groups a chance to address her concerns. She then gave the attorneys the opportunity to respond and, potentially, convince her otherwise.

    What’s happening at Adelanto?

    Adelanto is about 90 miles away from downtown Los Angeles. According to the lawsuit, the detention center does not accommodate detainees with special needs. Detainees with mobility issues, for instance, are assigned top bunks. And in a sworn declaration, one detainee described being put in handcuffs and ankle chains when she is taken to court appointments, even though she uses a cane.

    Plaintiffs also say solitary confinement is used to retaliate against detainees who speak out against these conditions and to isolate those who are experiencing mental health crises. An LAist analysis of the most recent ICE data found that as of January, Adelanto is among the top 10 facilities that put immigrant detainees in solitary confinement across the country.

    The detention center is run by The GEO Group Inc., one of the largest private prison operators in the United States.

    The federal government has declined LAist's request for interviews and comments, and The GEO Group has not responded to those requests.

    The arguments for and against an injunction

    In the hearing, Judge Sykes raised concerns that The GEO Group and the Adelanto warden are not named in the lawsuit. She also questioned how the court could enforce an order for immediate relief and wondered if there might be a more “efficient” way for the plaintiffs to proceed.

    The federal government has asked the judge to dismiss the lawsuit altogether. Pushkal Mishra, representing ICE and DHS, said “between the government and the alleged injury are the independent, discretionary, uncertain and speculative day-to-day activities of a third party.” The GEO Group and its employees, he argued, “are the proper defendants in the case, not [the] government.”

    The advocates' lawsuit underscores that companies like The GEO Group are subject to inspection by the federal government. Recently, ICE gave the Adelanto ICE Processing Center a “good” rating. Since September 2025, at least four people have died in detention at Adelanto, the most recent March 25.

    At the hearing, Vanessa Young Viniegra, a fellow at Public Counsel, refuted the federal government’s argument that ICE and DHS should not be named defendants in the case.

    “The Supreme Court has been clear that the government has a constitutional duty to care for the people in its custody and the people that it chooses to detain,” she said, “regardless of whether it employs a private company.”

    Judge Sykes interjected: “I don't think I'm saying that the government is not a proper defendant. I'm saying that The GEO Group [and] the warden of Adelanto may need to be joined or brought in as defendants as well.”

    Young Viniegra noted that the motion for the emergency court order provides the government “some leeway” in terms of how it obligates Adelanto to provide adequate care for detainees.

    “We're not asking the court to order, you know, a specific number of staff,” she said. “It's up to the government to comply with its constitutional obligations and exactly how it does that and its relationship with GEO is for it to decide.”

    What's next?

    Sykes said she’ll need more time to make a decision. In addition to the preliminary injunction, she is also navigating the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case and a motion by the plaintiffs to make this a class action lawsuit, meaning the court’s outcome would apply to all Adelanto detainees.

    Learn more about Adelanto