The Brief

The California Department of Industrial Relations recently awarded Los Angeles County more than $1.6 million to prosecute wage theft.

The money comes from the Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant Program, which will allow prosecutors to tackle wage theft cases and address obstacles workers face in reporting labor violations.

In L.A. County, the district attorney's office received $733,351. The county counsel‘s office was granted $475,000. The Long Beach prosecutor’s office received $414,392. In the city of L.A., the city attorney’s office was granted $317,543.

Prosecutors have already been busy holding employers who steal from their workers accountable. L.A. County District Attorney George Gascón’s office filed criminal charges last fall against garment industry business owners Soon Ae Park and Lawrence Lee for allegedly paying workers as little as $6 an hour and failing to provide overtime.

Gascón followed that up by charging Catalina Island business owners Jack and Nora Tucey for allegedly stealing more than $500,000 in overtime wages from 18 employees just two months later. According to the D.A.'s office, Jack Tucey died in December.

Gascón, who’s up for reelection this November, said wage theft was one of the most under-reported crimes in L.A. County.

“We want to make sure that the employers that are willing to steal from the workers, that they are going to also be paying the consequences of that,” he said in an interview with LAist last fall.

An Economic Policy Institute study from 2017 revealed that 2.4 million low-wage workers in the 10 most populous states lose $8 billion annually in minimum wage violations.

In total, 17 prosecutors across the state received $8.55 million to go after wage theft violators.

California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower called wage theft a serious and costly crime.

“Wage theft is a persistent problem, and this funding helps address it in local communities across our state,” she said in a statement.

After a week of fierce competition, Bear 910 and Backpack have emerged as the final contenders to be named the heftiest bear of Alaska’s Katmai National Park and Preserve.

There can only be one winner of Fat Bear Week, and it’s up to the voters to decide Tuesday.

The contest, which is in its 12th year, celebrates the resilience of the 2,200 brown bears that live in the preserve on the Alaska Peninsula, which extends from the state’s southwest corner toward the Aleutian Islands. Fat Bear Week was started in 2014 as an interactive way to inform the public about brown bears, the coastal cousins of grizzlies.

Last year’s winner, Chunk — known officially as Bear 32 — clinched his victory at an estimated 1,200 pounds. He was handily defeated in the first round of competition this year by Bucky, who went on to lose a faceoff against Backpack, known officially as Bear 89.

The event this year featured 16 bears vying for the heavyweight title in a single-elimination, bracket-style tournament. All voting is done online at www.fatbearweek.org, and a winner will be declared Tuesday evening after the final poll closes. The public can watch the bears on explore.org’s livestream cameras before deciding on their favorite.

“Fat bears are successful bears,” the nonprofit says on its website. This group gorges itself on the abundant salmon that return to the Brooks River starting in late June. It’s there that they can stuff themselves to accumulate the fat reserves they’ll need to survive the winter. To be featured in the contest, the bears must frequent the area around the river. Adult male brown bears typically weigh 600 to 900 pounds (about 270 to 410 kilograms) in midsummer. By the time they are ready to hibernate after feasting on migrating and spawning salmon, large males can weigh well over 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms). Females are about one-third smaller. The bears may each eat as many as 30 fish a day this time of year, working hard to eat a year’s worth of food in about six months.

During winter hibernation, the bears do not eat or drink and lose one-third of their body weight.

Fat Bear Week’s contestants also include five bear families, in recognition of the record high number of families and cubs at the river this summer. A mother must feed and protect her cubs while also eating enough calories to sustain herself through hibernation. Cubs often face the risk of attack by other bears due to territorialism or food scarcity.

Bear 132 and her three spring cubs advanced to the semifinals, but lost out to Bear 910.

Bear 132 has become one of the largest and most experienced mother bears at Brooks River, according to the nonprofit’s contestant profiles. In mid-July, one of her cubs became separated from the family for several days, wandering the river corridor alone. They were reunited a few days later.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills Sunday designed to help his mental health court reach more vulnerable Californians.

But two other bills that would have made much bigger, and more controversial, changes to the program died without ever making it to his desk.

Newsom’s CARE Court launched in 2023 with the intention of getting the sickest Californians off the streets and into mental health care. Family members, first responders, mental health professionals and others can refer people suffering from psychosis into the court-based program, where a judge then sets up a treatment plan through the county.

But the program has struggled with lower-than-expected utilization since its launch, and every year legislators attempt to fix that by passing new bills that change the program in different ways. This year, Newsom signed bills by Senators Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, and Steven Choi, a Republican from Irvine, which make it make it easier for first responders to get people into CARE Court, and for the loved ones of a CARE Court participant to provide information to their care team that might be relevant to their treatment.

Blakespear called it “incremental improvement.”

“I don't want to make it seem like these things are accomplishing more than they are,” she said. “But they are doing something. We are improving the system for people who need help the most.”

The bills that would have made bigger changes to CARE Court ended up left on the cutting room floor:

• Senate bill 1016, also by Blakespear, would have created a path for people who are too sick for CARE Court, which is a voluntary program, to potentially be referred to a conservatorship, which is an involuntary program. 
• SB 28, by Orange County Democrat Sen. Tom Umberg and Blakespear, also would have strengthened the link between CARE Court and conservatorships. 

The idea was to prevent people from falling out of treatment entirely if they are too sick to accept voluntary care.

Both died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August. It was a relief for their long lists of opponents, including Disability Rights California, who argued that the bills would have made CARE Court more coercive, and that forcing treatment is harmful and ineffective. But the bills’ deaths were a letdown for some families of people with severe mental illness, who are fed up with their loved ones languishing on the streets because they are too sick to consent to care.

In addition, SB 1242 – one of the two CARE Court bills Newsom signed into law – was watered down at the behest of activists before it hit his desk.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland and chair of the Appropriations Committee, blamed the price tag of the two bills that died for their failure. She also said the Legislature didn’t have enough details yet on what is and is not working about CARE Court.

"Those bills were very expensive and I think a little bit premature, because we don't know exactly what the challenge or issue is,” she told reporters in August. CalMatters has reported extensively about the challenges facing CARE Court, its participants, and affected families, for over a year.

Blakespear said the issue is a belief that people can’t be helped until they are ready to accept help: something she’s trying to chip away at. She’ll try again next year to strengthen the connection between CARE Court and conservatorships, she said.

“Just because of the way Sacramento works,” she said, “these philosophical shifts can be hard to accomplish.”

The California Public Defenders Association disagreed that CARE Court should be linked to coercive treatment, and opposed SB 28.

“Our experience has taught us that CARE works best when people have buy-in and choose to participate,” Stephanie Regular, assistant public defender for Alameda County and chair of the CPDA mental health and civil commitment committee, said in an emailed statement. “That voluntary engagement is not a weakness; it is part of why CARE works. Efforts like SB 28 that impose harsh consequences for inadequate participation risk undermining that success.”

How the new laws change CARE Court

A CalMatters investigation of CARE Court found the program has reached far fewer people than Newsom’s administration initially anticipated. After the program was watered down to remove its ability to compel people into treatment, many family members of people in the program are disappointed by its limited ability to help their loved ones. The latest state data, which goes through June 2025, found that of 2,216 petitions filed, 517 resulted in CARE agreements or plans, while another 984 were dismissed.

One of the new laws attempts to bring more people into the program by allowing firefighters, ETMs and other first responders to ask their county to refer someone into CARE Court. The idea is that first responders often encounter people who have a serious mental illness and need help, but they rarely have the time to go through the complicated, time-consuming process of filing a CARE Court petition themselves. Instead, they now can refer that person to the county, which then has 30 days to decide whether to file a CARE Court petition.

The other new law addresses a common concern from families of people in CARE Court: Once they refer their loved one into the program, they often are cut out of the loop, unable to give or receive information about their family member’s care. The original bill would have allowed whoever files a CARE Court petition to have more involvement in the process as treatment progresses. But it was amended after concerns about patient privacy.

Now, the law allows for one-way communication only – the petitioner can submit information about their family member’s location, condition, status or anything else that might aid in their treatment, but they can’t receive any information about their family member without that person’s consent.

That’s important, because someone with a severe mental illness participating in CARE Court might not be able to articulate in that moment how they are doing, said Suzanne Fidler, a delegate for the Conference of California Bar Associations, which sponsored the bill. But the person who filed the CARE Court petition, such as a family member, likely has close access to them and can give their treatment team important information, she said.

Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, which opposed the bill, disagrees.

“Families can say whatever they want to say and it will be taken in court as if it’s a diagnostic assessment,” he said. “And that’s dangerous.”

Another new law doesn’t directly relate to CARE Court, but instead seeks to improve the state’s conservatorship process. Also by Blakespear, SB 16 requires counties to develop procedures to train the people (such as clinicians or law enforcement) who place patients on involuntary mental health holds.

This year’s death of Umberg’s CARE Court clean-up bill — SB 28 — signals a shift in the tide, said Samuel Jain, a senior attorney with Disability Rights California, which opposed the bill. Umberg has introduced a follow-up bill to expand or change the law annually since he initially authored the CARE Court legislation in 2022. In past years, those bills have generally sailed through the legislature with near unanimous support.

Last year, Umberg expanded who qualifies for CARE Court by adding people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder.

At times, his CARE Court bills have been significantly changed late in the session, in a process known as “gut and amend.”

A legislative analysis submitted to the Assembly Judiciary Committee this summer said that the opponents of this year’s bill, SB 28, complained it had been substantially amended in June “after advancing through much of the legislative process as a different bill.” It continued: “This late-stage gut-and-amend approach continues a troubling pattern of advancing major CARE Court expansions without adequate opportunity for public input.”

“The Legislature is starting to do more of their own analysis of this and starting to stand on their own two feet and not just defer to the governor,” Jain said.

June Dudas, who has first-hand experience with CARE Court, said SB 28 and SB 1016 would have been game-changers if they had passed. Dudas helped her 85-year-old aunt submit CARE Court petitions in San Diego County for Dudas’ cousin, who was homeless and became violent when in the grip of psychosis.

Her cousin doesn’t realize he’s sick – a common symptom of schizophrenia known as anosognosia. That means he’ll never consent to treatment, Dudas said. As a result, his CARE Court case was officially dismissed twice. He was offered a place in CARE Court a third time, but turned it down and instead opted to go to jail for violating a restraining order against his mother.

“And it’s not just that his case is dismissed, he is dismissed as a human being,” Dudas said. “There are no other services offered to him if he doesn’t volunteer.”

Dudas’ cousin finally entered into a conservatorship in May — almost a year after his family first tried to get him into CARE Court.

Jocelyn Wiener and Yue Stella Yu contributed to this reporting.

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

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

The findings of increased concentrations of iron, zinc, chromium and lead are highlighted in a Sept. 22 report published by researchers and scientists from UCLA, UC Irvine and East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. 

According to the report, members of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice noticed that the water firefighters sent to the flames — an estimated 12,000 gallons of water per minute — was draining into the LA River. 

That’s what spurred Emmanuel Carrera Ruedas, a member of East Yard, and Casey Cooper, a community scientist, to gather water samples and test the runoff for metals from building materials after the fire ignited June 17. The fire was knocked down June 24.

Carrera Ruedas and Cooper took samples from puddles outside Lineage, from an L.A. River drainage spout and from a containment boom before the water runoff went into the river. Samples were also taken about 150 meters upstream and 100 meters downstream from the L.A. River drainage line and near Cudahy Park, which sits alongside the lower L.A. River. A total of 42 samples were sent to a lab at Columbia University in New York. 

Major findings from downstream samples retrieved between June 19 and 24 show that average concentrations of iron, zinc, chromium and lead were higher compared to “previously measured maximum concentrations” in 2018-24 data from the Los Angeles River Watershed Monitoring Program.

Here’s what the report found:

• Iron concentrations were 23 times higher than previously measured
• Zinc concentrations were 11 times higher than previously measured
• Chromium concentrations were 2.4 times higher than previously measured
• Lead concentrations were 2.4 times higher than previously measured

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

Zinc concentrations from downstream samples were also found to exceed dry weather standards set by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Metals such as lead have been found to affect human health and are known to contribute to brain damage, stunted growth and learning and behavioral problems, according to the report. Chromium, iron and zinc are of concern because they could affect aquatic life, such as fish, the report noted. 

Yoshira “Yoshi” Ornelas Van Horne, an exposure scientist and assistant professor with the UCLA Fielding School’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, could not clearly say how exposure to these metals could have impacted people long-term “because we don’t know how often they may be going [to the river],” either to cool down or engage in other recreational activities like fishing.

Carrera Ruedas and Ornelas Van Horne presented their findings at a meeting of the Los Angeles Regional Water Board on Thursday. 

The meeting appears to be the first public forum where water quality issues related to the Lineage fire have been discussed.

“We need to stop river erasure,” Carrera Ruedas told the board. He also said he observed oil in the LA River long after cleanup of the estimated 25,000 gallons of crude oil spilled during a May 22 drilling incident in East L.A.

“We must include the river as part of our narrative … as part of our ecosystem because the river is alive and it deserves protection,” Carrera Ruedas said. “I hope together we can figure out how to make our river safer and cleaner for not just us, but for aquatic life.”

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

Jenny Newman, assistant executive officer of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, presented a summary of water quality data collected during and after the fire by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, which found elevated but “not alarming” concentrations of copper, lead and zinc were detected between June 17 and 26. 

Newman also summarized water quality findings from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and Lineage.

Annelisa Moe, who oversees Heal the Bay’s water quality efforts, presented data showing a sharp increase in bacteria levels on June 24 and 25, compared to the pre-fire samples taken on June 11.

At the meeting, Laisha Angeline Atjun, of East L.A., urged that water quality findings be made accessible in one public space, in English and Spanish, “so that it can be digested by every member of our community.”

She told board members that word of mouth, instead of standard data, is how her community has been informed about the Lineage fire. Atjun said the river should be monitored during the rainy season. “The storms may flush out what’s still in the drains,” she said. 

Atjun asked for prevention and response, “so drains are contained and downstream communities are notified within hours.”

“Boyle Heights and my home East L.A. have already carried more than their share of pollution,” she said of the oil spill and Lineage fire. “Residents shouldn’t have to organize our own testing to know what’s in the river.”

Fatima Carrera, of Southeast L.A., lamented the river being treated as a dumping ground for natural disasters and what many see as an “appropriate way of getting rid of all our contaminants.”

“We’ve completely disconnected from the natural world around us,” Carrera added.

“I would like to see the development of a meaningful emergency response system that’s capable of protecting our communities during these disasters. … We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for a basic right to have clean water,” Carrera told the board.

The post Community testing finds elevated levels of metals in LA River after the Lineage fire appeared first on LA Local.

The torch relay for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics will begin in Atlanta, home of the last U.S. Summer Games in 1996, and travel through all 50 states, organizers announced Tuesday.

The Olympic flame will be lit in Olympia, Greece, the birthplace of the Olympic Games, before beginning its journey around the United States in spring 2028. The full route for the torch relay will be announced in 2027.

LA28 organizers say the relay will be one of the largest in Olympic history, passing through iconic and internationally renowned landmarks, stopping at major cultural and sporting events and hosting festival celebrations in select cities nationwide.

“Every Olympic Games begins with a single flame, and carrying that flame to Los Angeles is an honor and privilege that we’ll share with every corner of the country, as Americans in all 50 states carry the flame on its path to our Opening Ceremony,” LA28 chair and president Casey Wasserman said in a statement.

Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said the city will be proud to welcome the Olympic flame back 32 years after hosting the centennial Summer Games.

“Atlanta looks a little different. We are bigger. We are more connected to the world. So, when the flame returns to the U.S., Atlanta will be ready,” Dickens said in a statement. “Ready to welcome it from Greece. Ready to celebrate the spirit of the Games together as a community. And ready to send it forward toward Los Angeles and the next chapter of America’s Olympic story.”

The Paralympic torch relay will follow the end of the Olympics in August 2028, with the flame originating in Stoke Mandeville, England, the birthplace of the Paralympic movement. The relay’s U.S. starting location will be announced later.

Both torch relays will be sponsored by Coca-Cola, JPMorganChase, Allstate and Xfinity.