The Brief

As a young GI at Fort Ord in Monterey County, California, Dean Osborn spent much of his time in the oceanside woodlands, training on soil and guzzling water from streams and aquifers now known to be contaminated with cancer-causing pollutants.

“They were marching the snot out of us,” he said, recalling his year and a half stationed on the base, from 1979 to 1980. He also remembers, not so fondly, the poison oak pervasive across the 28,000-acre installation that closed in 1994. He went on sick call at least three times because of the overwhelmingly itchy rash.

Mounting evidence shows that as far back as the 1950s, in an effort to kill the ubiquitous poison oak and other weeds at the Army base, the military experimented with and sprayed the powerful herbicide combination known colloquially as Agent Orange.

While the U.S. military used the herbicide to defoliate the dense jungles of Vietnam and adjoining countries, it was contaminating the land and waters of coastal California with the same chemicals, according to documents.

The Defense Department has publicly acknowledged that during the Vietnam War era it stored Agent Orange at the Naval Construction Battalion Center in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the former Kelly Air Force Base in Texas, and tested it at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base.

According to the Government Accountability Office, however, the Pentagon’s list of sites where herbicides were tested went more than a decade without being updated and lacked specificity. GAO analysts described the list in 2018 as “inaccurate and incomplete.”

Fort Ord was not included. It is among about four dozen bases that the government has excluded but where Pat Elder, an environmental activist, said he has documented the use or storage of Agent Orange.

According to a 1956 article in the journal The Military Engineer, the use of Agent Orange herbicides at Fort Ord led to a “drastic reduction in trainee dermatitis casualties.”

“In training areas, such as Fort Ord, where poison oak has been extremely troublesome to military personnel, a well-organized chemical war has been waged against this woody plant pest,” the article noted.

Other documents, including a report by an Army agronomist as well as documents related to hazardous material cleanups, point to the use of Agent Orange at the sprawling base that 1.5 million service members cycled through from 1917 to 1994.

‘The most toxic chemical’

Agent Orange is a 50-50 mixture of two ingredients, known as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Herbicides with the same chemical structure slightly modified were available off the shelf, sold commercially in massive amounts, and used at practically every base in the U.S., said Gerson Smoger, a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court for Vietnam veterans to have the right to sue Agent Orange manufacturers. The combo was also used by farmers, forest workers, and other civilians across the country.

The chemical 2,4,5-T contains the dioxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD, a known carcinogen linked to several cancers, chronic conditions and birth defects. A recent Brown University study tied Agent Orange exposure to brain tissue damage similar to that caused by Alzheimer’s. Acknowledging its harm to human health, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of 2,4,5-T in the U.S. in 1979. Still, the other weed killer, 2,4-D is sold off-the-shelf today.

“The bottom line is TCDD is the most toxic chemical that man has ever made,” Smoger said.

A 1962 article in California Agriculture includes before and after photos showing the effectiveness of chemical brush control used in a live oak woodland at Fort Ord, citing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, the chemicals in Agent Orange.

(

Regents of the University of California

)

For years, the Department of Veteran Affairs has provided vets who served in Vietnam disability compensation for diseases considered to be connected to exposure to Agent Orange for military use from 1962 to 1975.

Decades after Osborn’s military service, the 68-year-old veteran, who never served in Vietnam, has battled one health crisis after another: a spot on his left lung and kidney, hypothyroidism, and prostate cancer, an illness that has been tied to Agent Orange exposure.

He says many of his old buddies from Fort Ord are sick as well.

“Now we have cancers that we didn’t deserve,” Osborn said.

The VA considers prostate cancer a “presumptive condition” for Agent Orange disability compensation, acknowledging that those who served in specific locations were likely exposed and that their illnesses are tied to their military service. The designation expedites affected veterans’ claims.

But when Osborn requested his benefits, he was denied. The letter said the cancer was “more likely due to your age,” not military service.

“This didn’t happen because of my age. This is happening because we were stationed in the places that were being sprayed and contaminated,” he said.

Studies show that diseases caused by environmental factors can take years to emerge. And to make things more perplexing for veterans stationed at Fort Ord, contamination from other harmful chemicals, like the industrial cleaner trichloroethylene, have been well documented on the former base, landing it on the EPA’s Superfund site list in 1990.

“We typically expect to see the effect years down the line,” said Lawrence Liu, a doctor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center who has studied Agent Orange. “Carcinogens have additive effects.”

In February, the VA proposed a rule that for the first time would allow compensation to veterans for Agent Orange exposure at 17 U.S. bases in a dozen states where the herbicide was tested, used, or stored.

Fort Ord is not on that list either, because the VA’s list is based on the Defense Department’s 2019 update.

“It’s a very tricky question,” Smoger said, emphasizing how widely the herbicides were used both at military bases and by civilians for similar purposes. “On one hand, we were service. We were exposed. On the other hand, why are you different from the people across the road that are privately using it?”

The VA says that it based its proposed rule on information provided by the Defense Department.

“DoD’s review found no documentation of herbicide use, testing or storage at Fort Ord. Therefore, VA does not have sufficient evidence to extend a presumption of exposure to herbicides based on service at Fort Ord at this time,” VA press secretary Terrence Hayes said in an email.

The documentation

Yet environmental activist Elder, with help from toxic and remediation specialist Denise Trabbic-Pointer and former VA physician Kyle Horton, compiled seven documents showing otherwise. They include a journal article, the agronomist report, and cleanup-related documents as recent as 1995 — all pointing to widespread herbicide use and experimentation as well as lasting contamination at the base.

Though the documents do not call the herbicide by its colorful nickname, they routinely cite the combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. A “hazardous waste minimization assessment” dated 1991 reported 80,000 pounds of herbicides used annually at Fort Ord. It separately lists 2,4,5-T as a product for which “substitutions are necessary to minimize the environmental impacts.”

The poison oak “control program” started in 1951, according to a report by Army agronomist Floyd Otter, four years before the U.S. deepened its involvement in Vietnam. Otter detailed the use of these chemicals alone and in combination with diesel oil or other compounds, at rates generally between “one to two gallons of liquid herbicide” per acre.

“In conclusion, we are fairly well satisfied with the methods,” Otter wrote, noting he was interested in “any way in which costs can be lowered or quicker kill obtained.”

An article published in California Agriculture more than a decade later includes before and after photos showing the effectiveness of chemical brush control used in a live-oak woodland at Fort Ord, again citing both chemicals in Agent Orange. The Defense Department did not respond to questions sent April 10 about the contamination or say when the Army stopped using 2,4,5-T at Fort Ord.

“What’s most compelling about Fort Ord is it was actually used for the same purpose it was used for in Vietnam — to kill plants — not just storing it,” said Julie Akey, a former Army linguist who worked at the base in the 1990s and later developed the rare blood cancer multiple myeloma.

Akey, who also worked with Elder, runs a Facebook group and keeps a list of people stationed on the base who later were diagnosed with cancer and other illnesses. So far, she has tallied more than 1,400 former Fort Ord residents who became sick.

Elder’s findings have galvanized the group to speak up during a public comment period for the VA’s proposed rule. Of 546 comments, 67 are from veterans and others urging the inclusion of Fort Ord. Hundreds of others have written in regarding the use of Agent Orange and other chemicals at their bases.

Boarded-up barracks are seen at Fort Ord in this photo dated Aug. 9, 1993. The Army base closed in 1994.

(

Marvin Hamburger

)

While the herbicide itself sticks around for only a short time, the contaminant TCDD can linger in sediment for decades, said Kenneth Olson, a professor emeritus of soil science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

A 1995 report from the Army’s Sacramento Corps of Engineers, which documented chemicals detected in the soil at Fort Ord, found levels of TCDD at 3.5 parts per trillion, more than double the remediation goal at the time of 1.2 ppt. Olson calls the evidence convincing.

“It clearly supports the fact that 2,4,5-T with unknown amounts of dioxin TCDD was applied on the Fort Ord grounds and border fences,” Olson said. “Some military and civilian personnel would have been exposed.”

The Department of Defense has described the Agent Orange used in Vietnam as a “tactical herbicide,” more concentrated than what was commercially available in the U.S. But Olson said his research suggests that even if the grounds maintenance crew used commercial versions of 2,4,5-T, which was available in the federal supply catalog, the soldiers would have been exposed to the dioxin TCDD.

The half dozen veterans who spoke with KFF Health News said they want the military to take responsibility.

The Pentagon did not respond to questions regarding the upkeep of the list or the process for adding locations.

In the meantime, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is studying potential chemical exposure among people who worked and lived on Fort Ord between 1985 and 1994. However, the agency is evaluating drinking water for contaminants such as trichloroethylene and not contamination or pollution from other chemicals such as Agent Orange or those found in firefighting foams.

Other veterans are frustrated by the VA’s long process to recognize their illnesses and believe they were sickened by exposure at Fort Ord.

“Until Fort Ord is recognized by the VA as a presumptive site, it’s probably going to be a long, difficult struggle to get some kind of compensation,” said Mike Duris, a 72-year-old veteran diagnosed with prostate cancer four years ago who ultimately underwent surgery.

Like so many others, he wonders about the connection to his training at Fort Ord in the early ’70s — drinking the contaminated water and marching, crawling, and digging holes in the dirt.

“Often, where there is smoke, there’s fire,” Duris said.

Even though the U.S. and Mexico national soccer teams have been knocked out of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, their fans aren’t giving up on the tournament. Instead, they’re throwing their support behind other teams still in the competition.

But how to choose which one to cheer on? It can depend on myriad of factors, from prowess on the soccer pitch and fandom for a particular player, to hunches that involve ancestral DNA.

Cheering for the underdogs

“I’m supporting Morocco,” said Alfredo Botello, a U.S. citizen born in Guadalajara, Mexico, who was cheering on Mexico until the team lost Sunday to England.

Morocco placed fourth in the 2022 FIFA World Cup after beating a powerhouse Spanish squad in penalty kicks. Botello said he admires the team’s performance and likes its underdog status. He’s not the soccer fanatic he used to be, he said, and that’s led him to enjoy the game more.

Other fans are backing the team that’s expected to win the trophy.

“At this point I would say [I will support] France because of Mbappé and his stance on anti-racism and anti-gambling — and just a great player too,” said Maria Romero Morales, a Mexico team fan. She lives in El Monte and was in Mexico during the group stage of the World Cup.

DNA and soccer

For some, family lineage takes precedence. “My father’s mother is 100% Norwegian,” said Jake Downey, a fan of the U.S team who organized a watch party for 14 people at his house in Northridge on Monday to watch the U.S. play Belgium.

Norway fans wearing Viking hats and adorned with face paint arrive before a World Cup match.

(

Buda Mendes

/

Getty Images

)

“I’m all in on [Erling] Haaland,” he said of Norway’s striker, who scored two goals in Sunday’s 2-1 defeat of Brazil.

Some Mexico fans are supporting Norway, too, in a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of way.

“I would love for England to lose, a little vengeance there,” said Amanda Durán of England’s World Cup match against Norway on Saturday. She’s still upset at England’s defeat of Mexico on Sunday.

She lives in Torrance and her in-laws are Argentine so she’s backing Argentina too.

Lionel Messi of Argentina celebrates after scoring his team's first goal during the World Cup 2026 group match against Austria.

(

Charlotte Wilson

/

Getty Images

)

Other fans take into account the social and political baggage each team’s national identity represents.

“I’ve watched the World Cup since 1994 and I’m definitely a person who goes for the colonized countries over the colonists,” said Xochitl-Julissa Bermejo, who lives in the San Gabriel Valley and wanted Mexico to win on Sunday.

But her support is complicated. She’s now cheering for Belgium, despite its severe colonialist past, after experiencing its warmth on a recent trip.

“I've gone to Belgium and it's a really fun place and everyone is really friendly and lovely,” she said.

Fun and friendliness is what she experienced with family watching Mexico play their last game, and she wants more of those soccer experiences before the World Cup ends.

Sweltering summer days have arrived in Southern California, with temperatures this week expected to climb to the triple digits in some places.

Heat advisories from the National Weather Service are in place for much of the region and will remain in effect until 8 p.m. Friday. The highest temperatures are expected Wednesday and Thursday.

The forecast

L.A. County: The interior valleys and mountains, including Pasadena and Glendale, could see temperatures up to 105 degrees. Inland coastal areas, including downtown L.A., will likely get up to the low 90s. Coastal temperatures will stay in the 70s and 80s.

Orange County: O.C. will avoid some of the highest temperatures this week. Inland highs will be in the 80s, and coastal temperatures will stay mostly in the 70s.

Inland Empire: Riverside County and San Bernardino County valleys could see temperatures up to the low 100s, while the area’s mountains will hit the mid-90s.

Coachella Valley: The National Weather Service has declared a more severe Extreme Heat Warning for the Coachella Valley, where temperatures are expected to climb as high as 116 degrees. It is also expected to stay relatively warm overnight, with lows falling only to the 80s.

The elevated temperatures are expected to pose a significant risk of heat illness, especially for the elderly, young children and other sensitive populations.

What’s driving the high temperatures?

Much of the heat will be driven by a combination of two meteorological forces: a high-pressure system hovering over Southern California and off-shore winds, commonly called Santa Ana winds.

“Everything is dictated by which way your winds are blowing and high-pressure systems,” said Lisa Phillips, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Oxnard.

High-pressure systems push warm air down, trapping it closer to the ground. Then, the offshore winds carry dry, hot air from inland deserts toward the coast, raising temperatures in the L.A. basin even higher.

The heat wave also comes as the marine layer weakens. The marine layer, often called June gloom, is lower-temperature air and cloud cover generated by changing temperatures in the late spring and early summer. As the summer gets warmer, the marine layer retreats.

Fire risk

The high temperatures and dry conditions this week will also exacerbate fire danger, particularly in the region’s valleys, foothills, mountains and other areas away from the coast.

Philips warned residents to be extra cautious as the heat and offshore winds dry out vegetation. That creates more potential fuel.

“We are headed into our fire weather season, where we have more wildfires. The vegetation is dry, so it does catch fire more easily,” Phillips said. “That just means that fires are going to be a lot more easy to start.”

Southern parts of Santa Barbara County are expected to see more significant fire weather, with periods of gusty winds.

What’s next? 

Temperatures are likely to dip starting Friday.

The high-pressure system is expected to move to the east, some southerly winds to bring some cooling moisture with them. But Phillips said temperatures will come down only slightly and are expected to remain above average throughout the weekend.

The slight respite won’t last long either. Another, possibly worse, heat wave is right around the corner.

“We could be looking at even warmer temperatures next week,” Phillips said.

In what they described as an effort to prevent more corporate landlords from displacing Los Angeles renters, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday to move forward with plans to require a new step in the process of selling certain apartment buildings.

The board voted unanimously to develop a “Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.” If passed on a final vote, the law would compel apartment owners to notify affordable housing groups when they put certain buildings up for sale in unincorporated parts of L.A. County.

The goal, county leaders say, is to ensure that organizations committed to keeping rents low have a chance to buy buildings that would likely otherwise be scooped up by investors who might push out existing tenants through rent hikes.

“The county is facing rising displacement pressures as rents outpace incomes,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis, who introduced the idea.

She cited statistics showing that more than half of L.A. County renters are considered “rent burdened” by federal government standards, with even higher rates among Black and Latino households.

“We need to fight,” Solis said. “We need to have tools to keep people in their homes.”

What buildings would be covered?

The proposed rules would only apply to buildings with five housing units or more and only to properties located in unincorporated areas, such as East L.A., City Terrace and Altadena. Based on past property sales data, the rules would apply to anywhere from 30 to 130 listings annually.

Nothing will change right away. Tuesday’s vote gives county staff 180 days to develop the regulations and bring them back to the board for a final vote.

During that time, the county will also work on developing a list of qualified buyers — such as affordable housing developers, community land trusts and other mission-driven organizations — who would be the first to hear about buildings coming up for sale.

Depending on how the regulations are written, the law could give those groups a “right of first refusal,” meaning they would have first dibs on making an offer to buy the building. County officials noted that a similar program in San Francisco gives qualified groups five days to respond with a letter of interest, followed by 20 days to place an offer.

Landlords would not be required to sell to these groups if they can get a better offer on the open market, county officials say.

Would sellers end up in a ‘Hotel California’ situation?

Though the idea is still in early stages, landlords and real estate agents expressed strong opposition during Tuesday’s public comment period.

“This proposal moves in the wrong direction by adding another layer of regulation and taxpayer expense, without creating any new housing units,” said Elizabeth de Carteret, the government affairs director at the Southland Regional Association of Realtors.

Meg Sullivan, who described herself as a “mom and pop” rental housing owner, said if the county establishes these rules in unincorporated areas, investors will choose to buy properties elsewhere.

“No private party in their right mind is going to invest in a market that looks like the equivalent of the ‘Hotel California’ song, where investors can check in, but it’s not clear they can ever leave, or on what timeline,” Sullivan said.

Existing groups say they’re ready to pursue deals

Tenant advocates told the board the proposed law would help protect renters from the whims of the profit-driven housing market.

Brenda Tafoya, executive director of El Sereno Community Land Trust, said organizations like hers have the experience needed to make market-rate offers on available properties.

“We work with the real estate market because we understand it,” Tafoya said. “We can partner with willing sellers and tenants to acquire properties, ensuring smooth transactions, while preserving permanently affordable housing.”

In response to concerns that the rules could delay properties from being offered to other prospective buyers, Supervisor Holly Mitchell asked county staff to consider regulations allowing listings to hit the open market at the same time affordable housing groups are given the chance to make an offer.

“This motion is not about taking property, forcing a sale or preventing a sale — it’s about creating a fair and transparent process,” Mitchell said, arguing that many older landlords want to retire without having to sell to corporate buyers.

Where would the funding come from?

Mitchell said public funding to support building purchases could come from money raised by Measure A, the county sales tax increase voters approved in 2024 to support housing and homelessness efforts. The L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, which is funded by the tax revenue, has programs to support affordable housing preservation.

L.A.’s idea is not new. Washington, D.C., has had a “Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act” in place since 1980.

Supporters say D.C. tenants use the city’s program to form associations that negotiate with new buyers to ensure ongoing affordability in about half of buildings coming up for sale, according to a 2023 study by the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development.

But critics point out that D.C.’s program rarely results in tenants actually owning their buildings. That same 2023 study found that ownership by a tenant-sponsored cooperatives was the outcome in only about 2% of building sales.

Solis said she wants the county to take a phased approach, with the initial program eventually being expanded to include a way for tenants to purchase their buildings directly.

The Covina City Council is set to vote Tuesday night on whether to allow construction of a battery energy storage facility that’s faced backlash from community members.

The project is a 110-megawatt storage system that would include two structures that take up 3.4 acres in a mixed business and residential area in northeast Covina.

The city’s planning commission voted unanimously against the project in June following resident feedback. Hundreds of community members attended the commission’s meetings in June, resulting in hours of public comment on the issue.

The backstory

RWE Americas, a subsidiary of German energy company RWE, filed an initial study report with the city for the construction of a 110-megawatt battery energy storage system in Covina in January.

These types of systems store electricity generated from other sources, such as wind farms and solar plants, in large batteries. The batteries can then be tapped by local electrical grids during power outages or times of high usage, such as heat waves.

RWE Americas’ website says the project would enhance the reliability of the city’s electrical grid, create 150 jobs during its construction and generate over $17 million in property taxes.

The public response

The proposed project has received significant negative backlash from the community on social media.

Some residents allege a lack of transparency from the city regarding the project’s development while others cite concerns ranging from potential noise pollution to fires and smoke to insurance hikes.

There has been similar backlash from communities against proposed battery energy storage systems in the City of Industry and San Juan Capistrano in recent years.

Recent storage system fires include incidents in San Diego in 2024 and Monterey County in 2025. The San Diego fire had flareups for seven days following the initial incident. The Monterey County fire resulted in the evacuation of 1,200 local residents for 24 hours.

The root causes of these fires remain under investigation by the EPA, but have been linked in some instances to an overheating process called thermal runaway associated with the lithium-ion batteries used in these facilities.

Covina is one of eight storage projects in the United States proposed by RWE Americas.

How to keep tabs on the Covina City Council

The Covina City Council meets on scheduled Tuesdays. Meetings start at 7:30 p.m.

Here’s how you can follow along:

• Attend in person: The board meets at City Hall, Council Chambers, 125 E. College St., Covina
• Watch the live broadcast
• Here’s how to submit a comment or contact the council