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

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Atmospheric rivers reignite question
    A white man with a gray mustache wearing track pants and a blue rain jacket with hood stands at the driveway of a home placing sandbags against a plastic barricade as water streams and overflows the gutter. Water wells up and flows around his left sneaker.
    File photo: Dan McLathan places sandbags outside his house, as heavy rain raises the possibility of flooding and landslides due to the denuded hillside vegetation from the recent Station Fire in La Cañada Flintridge on Dec. 7, 2009.

    Topline:

    Though it is internationally known for its catastrophic wildfires and earthquakes, California is no stranger to floods — particularly during the heavy rains that accompany its winters. In fact, 7 million Californians live in flood-prone areas. Despite this, just one in four Golden State homes sitting in what the federal government considers a flood hazard zone are covered by flood insurance. That gap spells trouble for thousands of homeowners in Southern California, which has been battered by a series of storms over the last week.

    Why it matters: San Diego and Los Angeles, where the river stalled out and dumped more than 10 inches of rain, were hit the hardest. Thousands of homeowners trying to repair the water damage are now in for a rude surprise when they discover that their standard-issue home insurance doesn’t cover floods.

    Why not? The lack of protection stems not only from misperceptions about the likelihood of flooding in sunny California and common misunderstandings of what basic home insurance covers, but also regulatory shortcomings by the federal government, which is supposed to ensure that all the country’s high-risk homes are insured in the event of floods. As climate change intensifies the state’s atmospheric river storms, the problem is only poised to grow.

    Though it is internationally known for its catastrophic wildfires and earthquakes, California is no stranger to floods — particularly during the heavy rains that accompany its winters. In fact, 7 million Californians live in flood-prone areas. Despite this, just one in four Golden State homes sitting in what the federal government considers a flood hazard zone are covered by flood insurance. That gap spells trouble for thousands of homeowners in Southern California, which has been battered by a series of storms over the last week.

    The torrential rain and wind are the result of what’s called an atmospheric river, a channel of moisture that can be up to 375 miles wide and carry the equivalent of two Amazon Rivers’ worth of water. Downed trees and mudslides that resulted from the downpour killed nine people, and half a million homes and businesses went without power across the state in recent weeks.

    San Diego and Los Angeles, where the river stalled out and dumped more than 10 inches of rain, were hit the hardest. Thousands of homeowners trying to repair the water damage are now in for a rude surprise when they discover that their standard-issue home insurance doesn’t cover floods. The lack of protection stems not only from misperceptions about the likelihood of flooding in sunny California and common misunderstandings of what basic home insurance covers, but also regulatory shortcomings by the federal government, which is supposed to ensure that all the country’s high-risk homes are insured in the event of floods. As climate change intensifies the state’s atmospheric river storms, the problem is only poised to grow.

    “[Flood insurance] uptake in California is half the national average,” said Jeffrey Mount, a geomorphologist and a senior fellow at the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California. “We’re really bad when it comes to that.”

    In the eight Southern California counties where the governor has declared an emergency, roughly 52,000 homes and businesses are covered by flood insurance. That’s less than 1 percent of the total number of homes in the region. One reason is cost: A yearly flood policy can cost between $500 and $1,000. In a state with a housing crunch and high cost of living, purchasing flood insurance may be out of reach for many residents who already struggle with the required cost of homeownership, including standard home insurance. Mount added that severe flooding events are quickly forgotten even by those who have lived through them, especially in a state where so many other ecological crises are constantly in the headlines.

    “Disaster fatigue is a real thing,” said Mount. “People wear out hearing they’re going to die from earthquakes, fires, and floods, and they get numb, and they don’t take actions to protect themselves.”

    Such concerns are only likely to increase in a warming world. A warmer atmosphere and ocean mean an atmospheric river can pick up more water as it crosses the ocean before dumping water on land. The presence of a strong El Niño, a weather pattern that is characterized by warmer Pacific Ocean temperatures, also supercharged the atmospheric river that hit California this month.

    “The combination of a warming atmosphere and co-occurrence of the El Niño event both conspired to generate the conditions we’ve seen now along with a healthy dose of random luck,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. Although attribution studies have not yet been conducted on the atmospheric river that has doused California in the last week, Swain estimated that absent climate change, precipitation levels would have been 5 to 15 percent lower.

    “That’s not a small number,” said Swain. “We’re talking about a couple extra inches of rain, and two inches of rain in Los Angeles would be a pretty big storm in its own right in a typical year.”

    Flood coverage is mandatory for those obtaining a federally-backed mortgage in a part of the state that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, has deemed a “special hazard flood area.” The policy is supposed to protect both homeowners taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and the federal government, which ultimately bears the risk when a borrower defaults. However, FEMA, which runs the national flood insurance program, does not keep track of compliance with the rule. Neither do lenders. As a result, a homeowner may purchase a flood policy when they secure a mortgage but fail to renew it in subsequent years. A 2006 FEMA study found that compliance with the requirement ranged between 43 percent in the midwest and 88 percent in western states.

    California, however, may be the exception in this latter region. Mount, the water policy expert, found that just a quarter of homes in parts of the state with high flood risk comply with the federal rule.

    “Nobody’s policing it,” said Mount. “There’s no mechanism to go in and threaten people and say, ‘If you don’t get flood insurance, we’re going to take your mortgage away from you.’”

    Mount added that the floods California has seen in the past month are “not floods of the affluent.” People with low economic resilience are often hit hardest by flooding because they tend not to be able to afford insurance and have limited resources to get back on their feet. For instance, in San Diego, which experienced its rainiest day since 1850 last month, low-income communities and communities of color were among the worst affected by flooding.

    “This is a social justice issue,” said Mount. “The people who can least afford it are the ones that usually get whacked, and those same communities can’t come up with the money to try and fix their infrastructure.”

  • L.A. to limit sale of nitrous oxide
    A tall white building, Los Angeles City Hall, is poking out into a clear blue sky. A person walking on the sidewalk in front of the building is silhouetted by shadows.
    A pedestrian is walking past City Hall in Los Angeles on Tuesday, July 8, 2025.

    Topline:

    The L.A. City Council voted Wednesday to ban tobacco and cannabis shops from selling nitrous oxide, a drug often called laughing gas or whippits. The new city ordinance will add penalties that include up to a $1,000 fine or six months in county jail if approved by Mayor Karen Bass.

    Why it matters: The FDA warns that inhaling or misusing nitrous oxide, which is sometimes used by dentists and medical doctors to sedate patients, can lead to serious health problems or death. Many community members say they have seen the drug’s recreational use become normalized. Among those who advocated for the City Council to approve the ban were several students from Bert Corona High School in Pacoima.

    “  I want to grow up in a community that's drug-free, where we feel safe just walking around, where this isn't just accepted as a part of everyday life,”  Mayra Rodriguez said during public comment at the City Council meeting. “We shouldn't have to grow up around this.”

    Other laughing gas bans: Local governments have banned nitrous oxide in places like Rialto, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills last month that put statewide bans on nitrous oxide from being sold at retail locations, with added flavors or in containers larger than 8 grams.

    More context: It has been a misdemeanor under state law to knowingly sell or possess nitrous oxide for use as a recreational drug for more than a decade, but the state allows it to be used for things like medical care, vehicle performance and cooking.

    Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who introduced the motion that passed Wednesday, said the city ordinance will strengthen existing protections enacted by the state. She asked community members to report any cannabis or tobacco shops selling nitrous oxide to the City Attorney’s office at TEP@lacity.org.

  • Sponsored message
  • The suit alleges they were illegal
    President Trump speaks during an event on health care affordability in the Oval Office at the White House on Thursday in Washington.

    Topline:

    The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

    The backstory: The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them. Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

    What's next: The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them. Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

    The Democratic National Committee on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump’s administration for recent television advertisements that promoted his political message while costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

    The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the ads are illegal government-sponsored propaganda and accuses Trump of personally directing them. It asks the court to declare the ads illegal and stop the use of federal funds to pay for them.

    Trump has faced bipartisan backlash for the ads, which glorify him and echo his campaign pitch as voters cast early ballots with the midterm elections less than a month away.

    The spots, which began airing in September, already have cost more than $12 million to run, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact, and a total of $20 million in Homeland Security Department funding has been tapped to pay for them.

    Responding Monday to the criticism, Trump defended the ads as “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A.” but said he’d pay for them using his MAGA Inc. super PAC going forward.

    But on Tuesday, the fifth ad in the campaign began airing with the notice “paid for by the U.S. Government,” promoting Trump’s military actions in Venezuela earlier this year. The same day, Trump made it clear he hasn’t committed to reimbursing any money that has already been spent, telling reporters “we’ll decide.”

    DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Trump is misusing taxpayer dollars in “a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November.”

    “Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump’s illegal schemes,” he added.

    Legal experts have suggested the ads run afoul of a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda,” and potentially other federal laws. The Homeland Security money tapped for the ads comes from a $175 million package Congress gave to the department as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda.

    The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. Legal experts have said the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

    The defendants in the lawsuit — Trump, the White House, DHS and the Office of Management and Budget — didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

  • Time to get your shot given 2026's trend

    Topline:

    The annual flu season usually starts in October or November. But this year, it looks like the flu started to pick up in early September.

    Why now: The timing of the flu season isn't the only thing that's odd. It's also unusual that flu activity seems to have started in Western states, such as California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska, experts say.

    The backstory: It's unclear why flu activity would have started so early, and in such an unusual part of the country. But one clue might be a new variant that evolved a mutation, which appears to make it better at evading existing immunity, especially among teenagers.

    What's next: Experts suggest scheduling your flu shot.

    Fall has only just begun, but it's already time to start thinking about the quintessential winter bug: the flu.

    The annual flu season usually starts in October or November. But this year, it looks like the flu started to pick up in early September.

    "There are enough signs pointing in the same direction to make me think, 'OK, yes. This is the start of flu season,'" says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    The percentage of people testing positive for the flu in the West has been rising steadily since around the beginning of September, she says. And the number of people showing up in emergency departments because of the flu has also been rising for weeks, she adds.


    "It's very uncommon to see flu activity rising this early. It's activity that we might normally see more like November or December," she says.

    The timing of the flu season isn't the only thing that's odd. It's also unusual that flu activity seems to have started in Western states, such as California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska.

    "It typically starts in the South and then expands from there," Rivers says. "So two uncommon developments there."

    Rivers stresses that the amount of flu activity is still very low in most parts of the country. But that's starting to change as the flu picks up nationwide.

    It's unclear why flu activity would have started so early, and in such an unusual part of the country. But one clue might be a new variant that evolved a mutation, which appears to make it better at evading existing immunity, especially among teenagers.

    "That's our best argument for what's going on right now in terms of this early flu season," says Dr. Alex Greninger, a virologist who heads infectious disease diagnostics at the University of Washington. Doctors there are seeing as much flu right now as they usually would around Christmas, and the mutated variant appears to be common, he says.

    So Greninger, Rivers and others are urging people to think about getting their flu shot earlier than usual.

    "It's crucial that people get an influenza vaccine," says Scott Hensley, a virologist at the University of Pennsylvania. "And this might be a year that people might want to get a vaccine early."

    But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn't been promoting flu shots as it usually does. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the CDC, is a long-time vaccine skeptic.

    "It is disappointing that CDC is quiet given that flu kills of hundreds of kids a year and can result in tens of thousands of hospitalizations and tens of thousands of deaths," says Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned last year as the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protest what he called political interference at the agency.

    The CDC declined to make an official available to NPR for this story. In a statement, a CDC spokesperson said, "CDC is developing a communications strategy to provide clear, accessible information about influenza vaccination and other critical steps people can take to protect themselves during respiratory virus season. This includes information about the benefits and risks of vaccination to support informed decision-making."
    Copyright 2026 NPR

  • Actor-comedian shares rare photos from his life
    A photo of a man sitting at a dinner table, covering his face with one hand
    Photos from Jeff Garlin's debut photography book "Best Seat in the House: Moments No One Asked Me To Capture...But I Did Anyway"

    Topline:

    Actor-comedian Jeff Garlin has a knack for capturing moments in his life. His new photography book, Best Seat in the House: Moments No One Asked Me to Capture...But I Did Anyway, compiles some of his personal favorite photos of colleagues and friends. Garlin joined AirTalk, LAist 89.3's daily news show, to discuss it.

    Listen: to hear Garlin talk about playing Jeff Greene in Curb Your Enthusiasm, personal stories about his relationship with some of the biggest stars in comedy, mental health struggles and his feelings on analog and digital cameras.

    Check it out: Garlin has two book signing events in Los Angeles next month. He'll be at Book Soup in West Hollywood on Nov. 2 at 7 p.m. and at the Leica Gallery, also in West Hollywood, on Nov. 15. You can find more info on his book tour on his website.