The Brief

Planned Parenthood centers in California are facing an existential threat after the passage of President Donald Trump’s new federal budget, which includes a provision that slashes federal funding for certain healthcare nonprofits.

Under the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, healthcare providers that offer abortions are under a one-year prohibition from federal Medicaid funding. Organizers with Planned Parenthood, one of several organizations that could see their funding slashed, are blasting the provision as a “backdoor abortion ban.”

“Existing law already prohibits federal dollars from paying for abortion care,” the nonprofit said in a statement. “By attacking Planned Parenthood health centers’ ability to provide the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare services, they aim to decimate abortion access in states like California where it is legal and a constitutional right.”

Votes for the bills fell largely along party lines, with the exception of two Republican representatives who sided with Democrats to vote against Trump’s budget proposal. Nine California Republicans, including Rep. David Valadao, R-Bakersfield, were among those who voted in its favor.

More than 80% of Planned Parenthood patients in the state rely on Medi-Cal programs for healthcare access, according to the organization. Planned Parenthood health centers provide a multitude of services ranging from STI testing and family planning to cancer screening and routine healthcare.

An exam room at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties’ health center.

(

Courtesy of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties

)

Christian Garcia, vice president of government relations with Planned Parenthood Northern California, said it’s likely that rural communities will be the most affected if the nonprofit is forced to reduce its services. In cities such as Redding, Eureka and Chico, Planned Parenthood is often the only reproductive healthcare provider within a three-hour radius, he noted.

“These are also communities who have lost community hospitals … who now have private hospitals that are religiously associated and are already making it difficult for [patients] to get primary sexual reproductive healthcare services,” Garcia said. “In the scenario that funding is not accessible, you’re going to see more healthcare deserts across California.”

Planned Parenthood affiliates in California could lose more than $300 million if the organization’s federal funding is slashed, Garcia said. He added that while the nonprofit still has access to the state’s critical reproductive healthcare investment, it won’t be enough to make up for the massive loss.

In a statement, Gov. Gavin Newsom lambasted Trump’s tax and spending legislation as a “massive tax break for the wealthiest Americans.” The bill’s passage jeopardizes taxpayer jobs, family support through Medicaid, public safety infrastructure and other critical programs across the country and state, Newsom said.

He said the cuts to Planned Parenthood would affect more than 1 million patients and force nearly 200 health centers to close.

“This bill is a tragedy for the American people, and a complete moral failure,” Newsom said. “With this measure, [Trump’s] legacy is now forever cemented: He has created a more unequal, more indebted and more dangerous America. Shame on him.”

Garcia said Planned Parenthood is prepared to fight back. On Monday, the nonprofit filed a complaint against the Trump administration in federal court, calling the provision that would cut Medicaid funding for certain healthcare nonprofits “unconstitutional” and an attack on the organization’s centers.

The nonprofit is also meeting with state and local partners to ensure that California residents continue to have access to its full complement of services, especially in rural areas where patients are the most vulnerable. As of now, there are no plans to shut down any Planned Parenthood centers and patients can still come in and expect the same level of care, he said.

“It’s important for people to know that their healthcare services are still here,” Garcia said. “Whether you’re a Medicaid patient — whether you’re a Planned Parenthood patient who is on Medicaid — we are here and we’re going to provide services.”

KQED’s Laura Klivans contributed to this report.

Californians could get instant rebates on electric vehicle purchases under Gov. Gavin Newsom's $200 million plan, which would require automakers to match state incentives dollar-for-dollar.

The plan, which the Legislature must still approve, lays out for the first time how the governor plans to steer a California-specific rebate program to bolster a slowing electric car market after the Trump administration cancelled federal incentives last year.

The California Air Resources Board would oversee the program, offering rebates at the point of sale to lower upfront costs for buyers instead of reimbursing them later. The draft does not specify rebate amounts, which the air board will determine during program design and discuss at a public workshop this spring, said Lindsay Buckley, a spokesperson for the agency.

The proposal exempts the program from the state’s usual rule-making requirements, allowing California to design and launch the rebates more quickly than typical for new programs.

Newsom first unveiled the incentive proposal as part of his January budget plan but released few initial details. State officials cast the subsidy as a response to President Donald Trump’s dismantling of incentives and blocking of California’s clean-vehicle mandate.

How the rebates would work

Outside experts and clean vehicle advocates said the details raise new questions about how the program would work in practice and who would benefit.

Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley, said structuring the incentives as grants allows the state to set the terms automakers must meet to access the money, giving California leverage over manufacturers.

But Mars Wu, a senior program manager with the Greenlining Institute, which advocates for investments in communities of color, said the draft plans fall short on equity, arguing the proposal does little to ensure the incentives reach the Californians who need them most.

“[The] proposal sets up a first-come, first-serve free-for-all scenario, which is not a prudent use of extremely limited public dollars in a deficit year,” she wrote in an email.

How far could the money go?

The proposal limits eligibility by vehicle price, not buyer income. New passenger cars qualify only if priced at or below $55,000, while vans, SUVs and pickup trucks are capped at $80,000. Used vehicles are limited to a sales price of $25,000. All vehicles must be registered to California residents.

The newly released details also add context about the size of the program. A CalMatters estimate of the governor’s initial proposal found that the $200 million would cover rebates for only about 20% of last year’s electric vehicle sales.

The proposed matching funds from auto manufacturers could allow the program to cover a larger share of buyers or provide larger point-of-sale rebates, depending on how the incentives are structured.

One clean car advocate said the details aren’t locked in yet — including how the rebates could be targeted. Wu said the state could move quickly without abandoning equity by deciding who qualifies in advance while still offering rebates at the dealership. “There is a way to balance equity and expediency,” Wu wrote.

On a clear January day about a week ago, California water resources engineer Jacob Kollen jammed a blue Mt. Rose sampler deep into the snow at Phillips Station, near Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada.

The second California Department of Water Resources survey of the season showed the snow was 23 inches deep, with a snow water equivalent (the amount of water contained) of eight inches. That’s just 46% of average, an alarming fall from the 89% of average seen at the beginning of the month.

These are crucial measurements to watch, as the snowpack is California’s most important reservoir. As snow melts throughout the year, it provides residents, agriculture and the state’s vast landscapes with much-needed moisture.

Our wet season began with quite a strong showing of rain, but a dry January coupled with warm weather has set California off in the wrong direction.

“ Statewide, we were better off last year than we are at this point,” said David Ricardo, the Department of Water Resources hydrology section manager, during a news conference about the snow survey results. “Something to be cognizant of, especially if we can make up more ground in the northern and central part of the Sierra Nevada.”

California's snowpack is at 56 percent of normal as of February 3, 2026.

(

California Department of Water Resources

)

As of Tuesday, the statewide snowpack is at just 56% of normal for this date, with the southern Sierra doing the heavy lifting at 74%. The central and northern portions are at 56% and 43% respectively.

For now, California reservoirs are well stocked, and drought conditions have been rained away, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. However, our snow water totals are just about in line with what we saw in 2012, the beginning of a catastrophic drought period.

Over in the Colorado River Basin, which supplies Southern California with about 20% of its water, snowpack is at about 64% of normal.

“ There's no way to sugarcoat it,” said Kathryn Sorensen,  director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “ I've been doing Colorado River stuff for 25 years. This is the worst I've seen.”

In the upper basin, the snow water equivalent is lower than it was in 2002 — a period of time so alarmingly dry that seven states and Mexico came together to hash out how to manage Colorado River water. The agreement, which has been in place since 2007, is set to expire at the end of 2026.

Because California enjoys senior water rights, it’s unlikely that the state will see Colorado River cuts for the next couple of years, Sorensen said. Arizona, however, will.

The Climate Prediction Center is forecasting below average precipitation across much of California through the end of the state's rainy season.

(

Climate Prediction Center

/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

)

Where will things go from here?

Experts are eyeing April 1, which is usually when the snowpack reaches its apex. If we manage to get a few sizable snowstorms by then, we should be sitting pretty heading into the dry months.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is forecasting likely above average precipitation over the next few weeks for California. Over the next several months though, forecasts are for below-normal precipitation with elevated temperatures.

Longer term, higher temperatures as a result of climate change can cause more precipitation to fall as rain rather than as snow, and for snow on the ground to melt faster. Warming air temperatures dry out soils and vegetation more quickly, too, meaning even an average amount of precipitation may not be enough for some ecosystems. Overall, snowpack could decline by more than 50% by the end of the century, according to California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 3, 2026.

An old couch, the remains of a black massage chair and a refrigerator with its door open clutter 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue on the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the street.

On Berendo Street, two refrigerators, both full-sized, lay splayed out on the lawn on a sunny day in late January. Both were tagged with graffiti.

The items are unremarkable, but they speak to the volume of trash that falls into Koreatown — one of the hardest-hit neighborhoods for illegal dumping, according to the latest available data from the city.

“Every single person in my building — that’s their top concern,” said Tania Ramos, who was born and raised in Koreatown and serves on the Wilshire Center-Koreatown Neighborhood Council. “It’s so horrible.”

From April 1 to Dec. 31, 2025, the city received a total of 206 illegal dumping reports at 4th Street and New Hampshire in Koreatown, according to an analysis of public data by Crosstown. The next highest count in that time frame was the 117 calls on the 7300 block of Lennox Avenue in Van Nuys, which leads overall for calls for service across the city.

Los Angeles overhauled its data last March, making it difficult to compare data from previous years.

Residents say the reporting system itself can feel ineffective.

“All the city tells us is to contact 311,” Ramos said. “They redirect you, but you have to wait and wait, and we end up being the ones that have to do neighborhood cleanups.”

The most impacted neighborhood from the 9-month period of April–December 2025 was Van Nuys, with 15,671 calls for service. Koreatown received 12,640 calls. Westlake ranked sixth, and Boyle Heights stood eighth, according to the data.

A spokesperson for Councilmember Heather Hutt, who represents part of Koreatown, did not respond to requests for comment about the long wait times and the high volume of illegal dumping.

Koreatown residents say they often report illegal dumping in their neighborhood, but often face long wait times for any type of cleanup.

(

Jon Regardie

/

The LA Local

)

Illegal dumping is a long-festering problem in Los Angeles. While in some instances it involves an individual tossing a few trash bags on a corner, it often means discarded furniture, mounds of unsold fruit or construction detritus dumped in a vacant lot or an alley at night by someone who does not want to pay a disposal fee.

Ramos said delays can stretch into weeks.

“Recently, there was a toilet in front of my building, and it took four to five weeks for it to get cleaned up,” she said.

Pablo Cardoso, director of environmental services at the Koreatown Youth and Community Center, said illegal dumping has “always been an issue.”

“For our crews, yes, there have been more requests to go and pick up bulky items,” he said.

Cardoso believes convenience and limited infrastructure both play a role.

“My personal opinion about it is that people are just lazy and the easy way to get rid of their unwanted furniture is to just dump it in front of their building,” he said. “I also don’t think that these condos or apartments where they live don’t have the dumping or trash bins for big furniture.”

Sometimes there are hazardous materials. At a Jan. 14 meeting of the City Council’s Public Works Committee, Nicholas Fuentes, with the city sanitation bureau’s Livability Services Division, said asbestos in abandoned commercial and construction material is a problem.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez chairs the committee and said during the meeting that some residents don’t use or know about the free hazardous waste drop-offs the city offers and instead resort to dumping.

“I come across buckets full of oil in my district, like on the side of the road,” Hernandez said. “That means someone got the oil, put it in the buckets, put it in their mode of transportation, drove to this place and dropped it off.”

The city offers free bulky item pick-up for residents getting rid of that old desk or mattress (it involves lugging the item to the curb on trash day). But illegal dumping is a criminal offense, and perpetrators can be fined up to $1,000.

“Do they call 311? I hope they do,” Cardoso said. “Is 311 the best system? It’s there, but I don’t know. What I know is that they’re overwhelmed with requests.”

Awareness of the service remains low, organizers say.

“When I would promote 311, which is a free service, a majority of people do not know about it,” said Pia Cadanela of No Harm KTLA, a volunteer group that does trash pickups in the neighborhood twice a month. “Even people who volunteer with us would be surprised. They did not know that there’s a free pick-up service by the city.”

The issue is not new. In 2021, then-City Controller Ron Galperin authored a report titled “Piling Up: Addressing L.A.’s Illegal Dumping Problem.” Yet the document’s suggestions on how to combat the practice have produced few tangible results.

Fourth and New Hampshire may be a dumping destination because of one corner: While apartment buildings and the Joohyang Presbyterian Church occupy three parts of the intersection, the southeast corner holds a vacant lot, with a series of tents by a retaining wall.

It’s likely already being monitored by the city. Fuentes said his team works on problem points in each of the 15 council districts.

“We have identified with the directors of each council district those chronic locations, and we know that they need to be serviced on a regular basis,” he said at the committee meeting.

Although Fourth and New Hampshire suffered more than anywhere else in the city last year, it was not the only destination for frequent dumpers in Koreatown. There were 57 MyLA311 reports at 3525 W. Third St., a strip mall. That ranked ninth in the city.

Cardoso said dumping tends to snowball after the first items are left behind.

“I drive by the streets, and there might be one or a couple of chairs,” he said. “And then later I drive by again, and it’s like, ‘Oh, now there’s a sofa. Now there’s a fridge.’”

“People see that little pile, and they’re like, ‘Oh, let’s add to that pile,’” he continued.

Ramos said residents are left frustrated by what she sees as a lack of outreach.

“I’ve never seen a city representative go door to door with resources and inform community members,” Ramos said.

She added, “It’s a combination of a lot of things — a lack of community education, lack of city outreach, lack of getting to the complaints, long response times — which can discourage people from contacting 311 because they have to wait too long.”