Topline:
Santa Ana Unified School District high schools are serving up more meals made from scratch that are well-balanced and familiar.
What kind of meals are we talking? Staff has so far served up chicken tinga, birria, carnitas, and fettuccine alfredo. New menus are put together every month.
Read on … for why the district has pivoted to homestyle cooking.
Nutrition services workers file into the kitchen at Valley High School in Santa Ana from as early as 6 a.m. to start prepping for the breakfast and lunch hours.
For the last five years, the Santa Ana Unified School District initiated a scratch-cooking program, meaning the kitchens have pivoted from majority individually wrapped lunches to homestyle cooked dishes.
As the program rolls out, the menu has evolved. This school year, Santa Ana Unified high school students are served chilaquiles, birria, carnitas, fettuccine alfredo, and so much more.
“We try to focus initially on the demographic of our community, and we want to give them items that they have heard of or are familiar with, at least to start out,” said Jonathan Park, chef at Santa Ana Unified School District. “That way we can really see whether the scratch cooking is working.”
Park works with nutrition specialists on building out a well-balanced menu each month and gives each school detailed instructions on rolling out those meals.
“A lot of the time our staff isn't used to that type of cooking,” Park said. “Cooking now has really been part of their job. Every day they're prepping something, or they're cooking something from a raw state.”
Valley High School serves more than 1,000 students a day at lunchtime, Visoso said. With youth homelessness and hunger on the rise in Orange County and beyond, Visoso said she wants to make sure students are eating well, but also that they’re eating enough.
Students who don’t want a meal are encouraged to take one anyway and leave it at the share station for someone else to pick up. Food is very rarely left at those share stations, she added.
Josh Goddard, director of nutrition services for the Santa Ana Unified School District, said funding for school nutrition is generally limited.
“We get about $6 per lunch. We get about $4 per breakfast,” Goddard said. “That's got to cover everything from the food that goes into the plate to the people that put that plate together, and then all the other little miscellaneous things that are needed to get the food where it needs to go.”
And the scratch-cooking program is not where he wants it to be, yet, he added.
“We're not going to be satisfied until every single student feels proud of what they pick up; they feel like they're seen on the menus. They feel like their voices matter. Every single student needs to feel that way,” Goddard said. “We have a lot of work to do, and gratefully, the Santa Ana Unified School District has prioritized that, and will continue to do that.”
Designing the menu means trying to give kids what they want to eat with dishes or ingredients they're familiar with, but also incorporating new foods. Each menu includes 20 food options for breakfast and lunch.
“We're able to give them something different, and from there we keep trial and error. We constantly just improve the menu as we go,” Park said. “It's constantly just building off of what the kids like.”
When a new lunch menu drops, Cafeteria Supervisor Janet Visoso told LAist she studies it meticulously.
“I tend to print everything, read it to myself, reread it, rewrite it. That's just the way I learn,” Visoso said. “I don't get bored of my job. I'm excited, and I take it as a challenge.”
Visoso said when she started in nutrition services 12 years ago, the district offered a lot of individually wrapped items.
“Most of the stuff was hot dogs, pizza, hamburgers, and we all love that, but to get scratch cooking and why it counts more is because we feed them a labor of love, and they are actually enjoying what they're eating,” she said.
The quality and health of the school lunches has improved, Alfonso Guttierez, a senior at Valley High, told LAist.
“Honestly, the previous year was different, and it’s been a big difference,” Guittierez added. “I like it very much.”
Edith Marin, a senior at Valley High School, said she feels extra appreciative of school lunches knowing that staff worked hard to cook them from scratch. For her and her group of friends, birria ramen was a big hit even with Southern California’s heat wave.
“Food cooked hot is just better,” Marin said. “Not all refrigerated food is as healthy, I think.”
Officials said it’s sometimes surprising what the students do and don’t enjoy. For example, when fish tacos and chile verde were added to the menu, staff thought they’d be instant hits — they weren’t.
“We had raw fish filets that we battered and we oven-fried until crispy. We had the slaw. We had the pico de gallo on the tortilla, and we thought that would be a hit,” Park said. “It didn't go so well.”
Topline:
The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election, a judge ruled Friday.
Why now? U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, in ordering the government to take down the advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.” She declined to pull several other ads.
Why it matters: The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that there are instances when the president’s office is entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify its policies and respond to attacks on its policies. Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far-reaching,” and she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.
The backstory: Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order she issued two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms.
What's next: After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she was doing so on a Friday afternoon and that the government would have no excuse to delay taking them down immediately. A government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify relevant individuals responsible for taking down the ads.
The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election, a judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, in ordering the government to take down the advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.” She declined to pull several other ads.
She said the three ads must be taken off official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube, Instagram and the like. Rochon also ordered the cancellation of any plans for the airing or distribution of the ads through authorized third parties, including by President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc.
Rochon was nominated to the court by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and once served as a law clerk for Trump’s sister, the late Maryanne Trump Barry, a longtime federal appeals court judge.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.”
Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order she issued two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms.
The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that there are instances when the president’s office is entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify its policies and respond to attacks on its policies.
Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far reaching” and she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.
The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have made to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they don’t try to help the public benefit from specific government programs, according to the plaintiffs.
After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she was doing so on a Friday afternoon and that the government would have no excuse to delay taking them down immediately.
A government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify relevant individuals responsible for taking down the ads.
“Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater,” the judge quipped in a reference to excuses offered by government lawyers when her recent order, issued over a weekend, wasn’t immediately obeyed.
Rochon said irreparable harm could result to the plaintiffs if she didn’t ban the ads while the court case proceeds, though she noted that she could reverse herself and restore the ads or ban additional ads after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks.
“This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims regarding the ads and would suffer harm if they were not taken down.
“This temporary restraining order will stop the administration’s wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case,” said Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward. “Congress has made clear that partisan ads cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars, and we are proud to work with this coalition to earn today’s result.”
In court papers, the coalition’s lawyers wrote that Congress did not appropriate funds to the president’s office “to run a PR shop to help the President’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote in response to the plaintiffs that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling advertisements to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.”
___
Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.
Topline:
Thousands of military veterans with VA-backed mortgages have been hit with higher interest rates and monthly payments since last year, when the Trump administration shut down a low-interest program designed to help them.
The backstory: Lenders offer loan modifications to enable homeowners to catch up on missed payments. It involves changing the loan terms, and for the vast majority of Americans, it either lowers their payment or keeps it the same, depending on what they can afford. But that's not the case for VA loans, since the VA abruptly ended the program. NPR found that 63% of veterans who received a loan modification were hit with a payment increase, compared with just 2% for modifications of loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which cover most of the U.S. mortgage market.
Read on... for more on veterans are being affected by the move.
Thousands of military veterans with VA-backed mortgages have been hit with higher interest rates and monthly payments since last year, when the Trump administration shut down a low-interest program designed to help them.
Among veterans who had their loans modified after a financial hardship, more than 15,000 saw their monthly payments increase by at least $150, according to an NPR investigation that obtained previously unreported data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Loading...
More than 700 veterans suffered payment increases of $1,000 or more.
Lenders offer loan modifications to enable homeowners to catch up on missed payments. It involves changing the loan terms, and for the vast majority of Americans, it either lowers their payment or keeps it the same, depending on what they can afford. But that's not the case for VA loans, since the VA abruptly ended the program.
NPR found that 63% of veterans who received a loan modification were hit with a payment increase, compared with just 2% for modifications of loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which cover most of the U.S. mortgage market.
Loading...
"This is the height of insanity," said California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, after NPR shared its findings.
"These are veterans that are already financially distressed — they were already in trouble," he said.
Veterans like Scott Boyd are literally paying the price.
When Boyd was a teenager, his dad died of cancer. He said he saw the military as a clear path to start helping his family.
"My mom signed paperwork when I was 16," Boyd recalled. "I'm like, 'I'm sending my checks home to take care of my mom.'"
He started out in the infantry and saw combat. Later, Boyd worked in Army intelligence in some dangerous places. When he got out in 2002, he had skills that set him up for a career in tech. In 2021, he bought a house near Columbus, Ohio, using a VA home loan. Like other buyers at the time, he got a nice low-interest rate. "I felt very blessed," he said.
But a few years later, Boyd hit a crisis: He lost his job in a mass layoff, and he said his time in combat came back to haunt him in the form of PTSD. He checked himself into the Dayton VA hospital for treatment but fell behind on his mortgage.
Most Americans can get help in a situation like this. Mortgage companies don't want to foreclose because both they and the homeowner experience losses. So they have levers they can pull to help people who've fallen behind on payments.
Boyd's lender told him that he didn't have to worry because the VA had a loan forbearance program that would allow him to pause his payments and provide him with an affordable way to catch up after.
"I later found out that wasn't true," he said.
It wasn't true because the Trump administration then shut down a key part of the VA's home loan program. It was called the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Without it, vets like Boyd were stranded with no option but a much-higher-cost modified home loan at today's higher interest rates.
In Boyd's case, he is now stuck paying $1,181 more — every month.
"This is outrageous," said Boyd. "I remember just thinking to myself, 'This is just so broken.'"
Some in Congress agree.
"The VA home loan program should not be making things worse and more stressful for that veteran, a combat veteran, who's been through hell," said Takano, about Boyd's case in particular.
Illinois Republican Rep. Mike Bost, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, did not respond to NPR's repeated requests for comment. NPR also reached out to Wisconsin Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a committee member who led the call to wind down the VASP program. He also did not respond to requests for comment.
The VA said in a statement that it helps thousands of veterans "retain homeownership and/or avoid foreclosure through programs like payment forbearance, loan modifications and individualized repayment plans."
Before it was shut down, the VASP program was helping tens of thousands of veterans who had fallen behind on their home loan payments by rolling those missed payments into a new mortgage with a low 2.5% interest rate. That made the program a lifeline for vets in today's higher-interest-rate environment.
And Boyd said his mortgage company had been telling him that he too could use VASP when he was able to resume paying his mortgage.
" I would constantly ask them, 'OK, this is getting further and further behind,' and they were like, 'You have this last lever to pull.'"
This was in the spring of 2025, just months into the second Trump administration. Key Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee vocally opposed VASP, which the Biden administration created after its own VA home loan disaster. Republicans warned that VASP was putting taxpayers on the hook for thousands of loans to vets who had trouble paying.
"If the Biden version of VASP was allowed to continue, I fear that the home loan will not exist in the future for my fellow veterans," said Van Orden during a House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on March 11, 2025.
But at the same hearing, as well as in letters to Congress and press releases, the mortgage industry and housing groups explicitly warned the Trump administration not to kill the program without first creating another viable option for vets. They said if the VA shut down the program before standing up a replacement, vets would be left with far worse options than other American homeowners. With interest rates up around 7%, they warned that the only option left would be a modified loan at the current higher rates, which would result in foreclosures for those who couldn't afford the higher payments. And that's exactly what has been happening.
" I was doing the math in my head as they were telling me, you know?" Boyd said about the loan modification he was presented with. "If I'm going from 2.75 to 6.75 … it seemed ridiculous," he said. Not only would that jump in his interest rate boost his payment by nearly $1,200 every month, but his loan term was extended to 40 years. So he went from about half of his monthly payment going toward principal to now more than 90% of his payment going to cover just the interest.
"This was a foreseeable outcome of abruptly ending a program without a replacement in place," said Matthew Douglas, of the Housing Policy Council. He represents the largest mortgage companies in the U.S. and was among those warning the VA not to kill VASP. Asked about NPR's findings, he said, "It's a mathematical certainty that borrowers are going to have those kind of shocking payment increases."
Despite the warnings, the Trump administration ended the VASP program on May 1, 2025 — apparently in coordination with House Republicans, who announced the move before the Department of Veterans Affairs did, even though VASP was ended administratively, with no vote from Congress.
"We — along with many of our colleagues — had serious concerns about the impact VASP would have on not only the future of VA's home loan program, but the mortgage lending business as a whole. Today, the Trump administration rightfully put an end to VA's VASP program," Bost and Van Orden said in a joint press release at the time.
In his statement to NPR, VA press secretary Quinn Slaven wrote: "many leading voices in Congress supported the termination of VASP, which put the entire VA home loan program at risk."
At the same time Van Orden was calling for VASP to be scuttled, he had written a bill to replace it with a new VA Partial Claim Program (PCP). Congress quickly passed that bill with broad bipartisan support in the wake of the VA scuttling VASP. It directed the VA to create an option for vets behind on payments, enabling them to move their missed payments to the back of their loan term. That way, vets could keep their original mortgage and not be forced into a higher-cost loan.
But after ending VASP, it took the VA more than 13 months to design and announce the details of the new program, which it did in June of this year. And the industry was then given another 180 days to implement it. Most mortgage companies still do not offer it.
In that gap, thousands of veterans got modified loans with higher interest rates and payments. The VA's new PCP program won't do anything to help those vets — they'll remain stuck in those modified loans.
NPR asked the VA about the vets who fell into the gap between the two programs. Slaven, the VA spokesman, said in his statement that the VA home loan program "is based on the premise that while Veterans may need some assistance, they must generally be able to make their mortgage payments."
Industry groups say raising a struggling homeowner's payment makes it more likely for them to redefault and face foreclosure. Foreclosures on VA loans rose to a 10-year high after VASP was killed, according to industry data. Experts warned in a congressional roundtable in September that time is running out for the government to help these vets or a wave of foreclosures is still to come.
Rep. Takano told NPR that the VA, if it chose to, could put these vets back into lower-cost mortgages or that Congress could pass a law to do it.
"We could do something for those veterans who saw a jump in their interest rates," Takano said.
Outside Columbus, Ohio, Scott Boyd is still managing to make those higher mortgage payments.
When he bought the home, he said, it felt like a guarantee of shelter and stability for him, his partner and the four kids they are raising together.
" I made a commitment, saying no matter what, I want to build a home that is big enough. … I wanted to get them in better schools and things like that," he said.
He was even able to help when his father-in-law became ill recently; they moved him into the finished basement, where he got home hospice care.
So when he was presented with the terms of that loan modification, he had not only kids in the house but his dying father-in-law too. He'd just gotten back on his feet financially and was being told his options were the loan modification or foreclosure.
"My job was still new, and that still felt shaky. … My PTSD was shaky. … It seemed like the right thing to do was just to take the modification," he said.
Two weeks after Boyd signed the loan modification, the VA launched the new Partial Claim Program that would have allowed him to keep his original loan terms with the same monthly payment and low 2.75% interest rate. It took two more months before the first mortgage company offered vets access to the PCP, and most of the industry is still working to stand up the program before the deadline that the VA gave it of Nov. 28.
Boyd said that he doesn't often talk about his service and that he doesn't feel entitled to be treated better than any other American. But he did not expect the VA to give him worse options than those of people who never served.
" I really felt hurt more than anything. I wasn't angry. I was just like, I felt so defeated," Boyd said.
"Everything that I've done for this country and the things that I've been through, the things that I've seen, the things I've had to deal with … it's come down to, 'Yeah, I'm sorry — it's not in our systems yet. … There's nothing we can do about it.'"
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
In the weeks ahead of the midterms, various cities and states across the country are reporting a notable rise in ICE activity, according to reports gathered by NPR and its member stations.
What authorities said: NPR wrote to the agency to ask if there has been a recent surge. It responded: "ICE agents uphold our nation's immigration laws in all 50 states, seven days a week, 24 hours a day." And yet NPR and its member stations have received tips from rural Illinois, Oregon, Detroit and California about surges in ICE enforcement throughout October.
The impact: Weiser of the Brennan Center says there's no indication the raids are affecting turnout. On the contrary, she says there has been a surge in early voting in minority communities across the country. "The good news is: it isn't working. Americans are tuning this out and we are not seeing a significant impact on participation. And we are actually seeing huge surges in participation in communities of color, and in Latino communities, and in all the communities that have been targeted by ICE and DHS."
Very early on Wednesday morning, Dover, N.J., Councilwoman Sandra Wittner started getting messages about immigration agents. A dozen or more were gathering outside a Walgreens, according to the messages she was getting. Throughout the day, neighbors in north New Jersey saw a spike in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.
And New Jersey is not alone. In the weeks ahead of the midterms, various cities and states across the country are reporting a notable rise in ICE activity, according to reports gathered by NPR and its member stations.
"The tactics that the administration has been deploying in communities really appear to be designed to try to intimidate voters," says Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. Despite that, early turnout is surging.
"There was definitely a lot of apprehension and fear," Wittner recalls. "We just really weren't sure if something huge was about to happen. People were not feeling very comfortable or safe."
Wittner is not sure who was detained or where, which is unsurprising: these days it's difficult to report on ICE crackdowns as they happen, because the Department of Homeland Security no longer publicly shares timely information on its operations.
NPR wrote to the agency to ask if there has been a recent surge. It responded: "ICE agents uphold our nation's immigration laws in all 50 states, seven days a week, 24 hours a day."
And yet NPR and its member stations have received tips from rural Illinois, Oregon, Detroit and California about surges in ICE enforcement throughout October.
An official within New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's office who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that they have noted a surge in ICE activity in the city.
"We're certainly witnessing an uptick in activity, and have been since the summer," says a member of a volunteer group of neighbors in New York. She asked that NPR not use her name, as she is worried about retaliation. Her group goes to the scene where an ICE operation is happening, documents it, reminds those being detained of their rights, and alerts neighbors.
"In the past few weeks we've seen numerous large operations, or what we call cluster raids, multiple agents going to one spot and then the next," she said.
On the other side of the country, Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Troy Brynelson has reported on a similar trend. "What we were seeing in early October and what we've seen continue, at least anecdotally throughout this month, is that ICE activity has really picked up in Portland." Brynelson says it seems to be concentrated in commercial areas. "I'd say it's a noticeable uptick compared to what we've seen over the summer."
Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a civil rights organization, says he's concerned because this is happening so close to the midterm elections. "It's not about ICE at the actual polling station, it's ICE at the perimeter of the polling station," he says.
"Mass enforcement actions could be away from the polls, but with social media and the news, it could be enough to dissuade somebody from actually going out to vote."
Weiser of the Brennan Center says there's no indication the raids are affecting turnout. On the contrary, she says there has been a surge in early voting in minority communities across the country. "The good news is: it isn't working. Americans are tuning this out and we are not seeing a significant impact on participation. And we are actually seeing huge surges in participation in communities of color, and in Latino communities, and in all the communities that have been targeted by ICE and DHS."
Even so, she says that intimidation at the polls is illegal, and should be reported.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
California water regulators have approved a new plan overhauling how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it, setting up the next fight over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to balance water supplies with the needs of a struggling ecosystem. The plan gives water agencies a choice: agree to forgo some water and restore habitats, or fall under the regulatory backup — a set of mandatory rules for how much water must remain in rivers and streams to flow through the Delta. But the compromise the Newsom administration reached four years ago with the state’s most powerful water suppliers now faces opposition from unexpected quarters.
Why it matters: Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, principal deputy commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates California’s federal water delivery system, wrote to the water board in September to express the Trump administration’s “serious concern” with the near-final draft. Bettencourt said it “reflects more of what has come to be expected from the State Board –- executive and regulatory overreach, questionable legal authority, and continued downward pressure on water users throughout the state,” referring to reduced water supplies.
The backstory: Powerful water agencies that once backed it say Newsom’s voluntary agreements have become too restrictive. The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw support and several hundred million dollars in funding. And environmental advocates, tribes, and fishing groups warn that the deal and its regulatory backup gut protections for an ecosystem already in crisis.
California water regulators have approved a new plan overhauling how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it, setting up the next fight over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to balance water supplies with the needs of a struggling ecosystem.
The plan gives water agencies a choice: agree to forgo some water and restore habitats, or fall under the regulatory backup — a set of mandatory rules for how much water must remain in rivers and streams to flow through the Delta.
But the compromise the Newsom administration reached four years ago with the state’s most powerful water suppliers now faces opposition from unexpected quarters.
Powerful water agencies that once backed it say Newsom’s voluntary agreements have become too restrictive. The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw support and several hundred million dollars in funding. And environmental advocates, tribes, and fishing groups warn that the deal and its regulatory backup gut protections for an ecosystem already in crisis.
Opening this week’s final hearings, E. Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said he was struck by the opposing criticism. He called water agencies’ narrative that the plan has strayed from Newsom’ original deal “convenient theater.”
"Some agencies say we kept too much oversight,” Esquivel said. On the other hand, tribes and environmental groups say “we kept too little. They are pointing at the same provisions from opposite directions. That doesn't make the plan perfect. It does tell me the plan sits where a regulator should.”
The question is how California’s water regulators will move forward without the buy-in of major water users these agreements had aimed to bring on board, and whether the regulatory backup will hold if they don’t.
“That creates a world of confusion and dysfunction,” Gary Bobker, program director at Friends of the River, said at a briefing Tuesday. “And I think the board recognizes that they're going to be handed an incredible morass.”
The Delta is the heart of California’s water delivery system, where state and federal pumps export Northern California river water to Central and Southern California. It’s also the center of California’s water wars, and in the throes of collapse.
State officials have been warning for years that existing rules aren’t enough to stop the precipitous decline of native species like the state’s iconic salmon as they lose freshwater to cities and farms. Crashing populations forced the recent cancellation of salmon fishing for three unprecedented years in a row.
But the state last overhauled the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, a keystone document governing water quality and flows, in 1995.
Late Thursday night, after two days of public comments raising concerns with the plan and several hours deliberating last-minute changes, the State Water Resources Control Board approved an update centering Newsom’s voluntary agreements.
Only one board member, civil engineer Nichole Morgan, voted against the update. Among the yes votes was Newsom’s former secretary for environmental protection Jared Blumenfeld, a signatory to the original deal.
California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot told a quiet room Thursday that he knew this path forward was uncomfortable for everyone.
“We heard yesterday a lot of groups, including tribal governments, that continue to believe that this is not sufficient, and this is the wrong approach,” Crowfoot said. “We have water agencies that aren't comfortable with the way that their proposal — our proposal — has materialized … That’s natural. This is a paradigm shift.”
Officially known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program and backed by $2.9 billion of mostly state as well as federal and water supplier money, the Newsom administration touted these agreements as a way to forestall legal fights while balancing competing demands on the Delta.
But after years of regulatory processes, public comment and environmental review, the original signatories are balking. Water users, including Westlands Water District, a power player in the state’s $60 billion agricultural economy, say the current plan is not what they signed up for.
“It's unrecognizable,” said Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors, which represents public water agencies serving 750,000 acres of farmland and 27 million people.
Pierre called the latest version a “complete system of micromanagement” that centers too much decision-making with the state water board’s executive director, and retains too little flexibility.
“I think everyone's reviewing it to see, okay, we've all acknowledged this is not what we proposed, but is it workable?” she said.
In a major blow to the voluntary agreements, the federal government — which pumps Delta water to millions of acres of Central Valley farmland — is threatening to jump ship. If it does, it would take hundreds of millions of federal dollars with it.
State water regulators clarify that no one has yet officially withdrawn from the deal. But the threat hits harder than those from other water users, said Barry Nelson, a senior policy analyst for the Golden State Salmon Association.
“They're the largest water project in the Central Valley. They have more storage than anyone else in the state of California. And they jointly operate the Delta with the state,” Nelson said at a briefing for reporters.
Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, principal deputy commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates California’s federal water delivery system, wrote to the water board in September to express the Trump administration’s “serious concern” with the near-final draft.
Bettencourt said it “reflects more of what has come to be expected from the State Board – executive and regulatory overreach, questionable legal authority, and continued downward pressure on water users throughout the state,” referring to reduced water supplies.
These concerns include a new provision requiring that if state or federal managers make substantial changes to water deliveries that decrease flows through the Delta, they must submit a plan to make up for the loss.
The addition comes after the Trump administration’s unilateral move last December to allow more federal exports from the Delta to Central Valley farms. California officials, who typically coordinate with federal water managers, warned at the time this risked leaving less for other water users and the environment.
Bettencourt wrote that if the board fails to address the Trump administration’s concerns, federal water managers will pull out and stop funding a plan she said “threatens reliability of water supplies that support … the entire fabric of California’s agricultural economy, rural communities, urban centers, and natural vitality.”
State water regulators say the plan can still succeed without federal participation or money, which was originally anticipated to reach $740 million.
“We're still committed to making the (voluntary agreements) pathway work for the other participants. It does complicate things, and we'll have to work through that,” said Eric Oppenheimer, the state water board’s executive director.
The money is part of the voluntary agreements’ $2.9 billion price tag intended to pay for habitat restoration and water purchases.
Oppenheimer said that if the Trump administration pulls out, federal water managers at the bureau instead would be bound by the backup plan.
But he added the board’s modeling shows it’s in the Trump administration’s best interest to stick with the voluntary agreements because it will allow them to export more water.
“It has a reduced water supply impact for Reclamation and its contractors, and we also think that the voluntary agreement itself is a benefit for the ecosystem,” Oppenheimer said. “But we can't make them volunteer.”
Environmental advocates and the fishing industry are skeptical about many things, including that state regulators will truly hold the federal government to the regulatory backup. They point to increased federal releases from Lake Shasta to send water to Central Valley farms this past summer, despite state objections that this would sap cold water necessary for imperiled salmon.
Those who fought voluntary agreements from the outset for failing to protect the Delta and all who depend on it say it’s ironic that water users are now fighting the deal, too.
“There actually might be a war among water users,” Bobker said. “That's kind of what you're seeing here: people who think the (voluntary agreements) are a weak-enough gutting of the regulations, and those who think actually no, they don't go far enough.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
