US establishes two new national monuments with breathtaking characteristics: 'We're protecting 840,000 acres'
These two sites, comprising more than 840,000 acres, are a valuable addition to California's 30x30 initiative — a push to conserve 30% of the state's land and coastal waters by 2030. As of this addition, the state sits at 25.8%, with 26.1 million acres preserved for future generations.
Neither designation would have happened without the tireless efforts of the Indigenous tribes in the area. The governor's office praised "decades of work by local community leaders, business owners, and environmental organizations," and Gov. Gavin Newsom highlighted these facts in his statement.
Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty?
Definitely
Only in some areas
No way
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"California is now home to two new national monuments that honor the tribes that have stewarded these lands since time immemorial," said Newsom. "Thanks to President Biden and the leadership of California tribes and local communities, we're protecting 840,000 acres of some of our state's most culturally significant lands."
The Chuckwalla National Monument, found in the desert area of eastern Riverside County beside Joshua Tree National Park, holds sites of sacred significance to the Iviatim, Nüwü, Pipa Aha Macav, Kwatsáan, and Maara'yam peoples. The area will now be safe from environmental destruction from human development while being more accessible to the public.
The Sáttítla National Monument is located in Northern California, comprising the Medicine Lake Highlands, a culturally significant site for the Pit River Tribe. It's also a critical area for Fall River Springs, which the governor's office describes as "the state's largest spring system and one of the most extensive aquifer networks in the Western United States." That makes it vital for everyone who relies on those aquifers for water.
Not only that, but the establishment of national monuments is great for business and tourism in the surrounding area, which leads to job creation and an economic boost. It also benefits public services like safety, fire, recreation, and libraries, thanks to the added tax revenue from visitors.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
34 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on 'creating distracting headlines and settling old scores.' 'But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem,' she said in a statement. ___ Kramon reported from Atlanta. She is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
An Expensive Health Care Cliff Is Coming Unless Republicans Stop It
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Republicans indicated this week they'd be open to extending one of former President Joe Biden's signature health care policies to avoid a politically poisonous spike in insurance costs ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The enhanced premium tax credits, which Democrats included in President Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan Act, reduced the cost of health insurance for many middle-class people enrolled in Obamacare exchanges. The average person who buys insurance through the exchanges is expected to pay 75% more for their premium if the tax credits expire, according to an analysis from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also projected that letting the subsidies lapse would lead to about 5 million Americans losing their insurance over the next 10 years. 'I am part of a small group that is looking to try to find a path forward to extend those,' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). 'I think it is recognized that our failure to do that could result in some pretty precipitous increases in costs for Americans for their health insurance, and that's not where we want to end up at the end of this year.' 'It's not these people's fault that they're forced onto Obamacare in the first place and then to take away what the government promised them in terms of this credit, seems to me to be not exactly the most desirable outcome,' added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). The looming expiration of the tax credits was put on the back burner by Republicans during the first six months of President Donald Trump's term as the party focused on passing his agenda of tax cuts and historic cuts to Medicaid, as well as slashing foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. Discussions are now underway in the Senate for a bipartisan solution to a problem that could have serious ramifications for the GOP in next year's elections, with high prices and inflation still on top of voters' minds. They are being led by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the Senate health committee, who has previously criticized the credits, but who is also facing voters at the ballot box next year. Passing a bipartisan fix is easier said than done, however. For one, it'll be costly. An estimate from CBO said it would cost $380 billion over a decade to make the subsidies permanent. Senate Republicans are eyeing a smaller fix of about $125 billion with a lower income threshold to qualify for the credit, as well as an offset to pay for it. 'I think we'll be able to offer an appropriate offset, and I think it would be very difficult for Democrats to be able to say no to that,' Rounds said. Many conservatives are flat-out opposed to extending the tax credits, however. Some are pushing for rolling back Obamacare more broadly, including by winding down its Medicaid expansion, in future reconciliation bills. 'Nobody's losing coverage, that's what's important to me,' Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said when asked what Congress ought to do when the tax credits expire. Even if the Senate can agree on a fix — something that would require 60 votes — passage could be more complicated in the GOP-controlled House, where there's no guarantee that leadership would even take it up. Lawmakers could potentially tuck it into an end-of-the-year government funding bill, but that could also risk a government shutdown. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet. But it's on the radar,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters this week when asked about the ACA credits. Waiting until the end of the year to address the issue may be too late, however. While the tax credits technically expire on Dec. 31, insurers must file their final rates for health plans offered on ACA exchanges for next year by Aug. 13, according to the centrist think tank Third Way. That's smack-dab in the middle of Congress' annual recess. It's not clear where the White House stands on the issue. Getting Trump on board with extending the subsidies could help move Republican votes on Capitol Hill. A memo from a conservative advocacy organization, for example, warned this week that the benefits of the president's tax cut law will be nullified if the subsidies are not extended and people's health care costs go up. Not extending the subsidies will also hand Democrats — who are already eager to run against Trump's cuts to Medicaid — a further advantage on health care issues, particularly in purple battleground states that could determine the control of the House and Senate next year. The issue, for now, remains a bit of a sleeper: A KFF poll conducted last month found just 28% of Americans had heard 'a lot' or 'some' about the credits' potential expiration. But a full 77% of Americans, including 56% of self-identified MAGA supporters, back their extension. 'For some people, their premiums will as much as double, and people don't have the resources in their household income in order to be able to absorb that,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) told HuffPost. 'Donald Trump and the Republicans are doing the opposite of what he said he was going to do. He said he was going to drive costs down. He's driving them up every single day. So I think they've got a decision to make about whether they're OK with that.'
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Associated Press
Key player in California's water wars embraces controversial pact
After decades of deterioration and ecological collapse in the heart of California's water system, state regulators embraced the Newsom administration's controversial plan to overhaul how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it. It's a major development in a long-running battle over how much water must flow through the Delta for the survival of iconic Chinook salmon, sturgeon and other species — and how much can be tapped for tens of millions of Californians and vast tracts of Central Valley farmland. On one side are conservationists, the fishing industry, Delta communities and Native tribes: They want stringent rules requiring cities and farms to take less water from the imperiled watershed. On the other are Gov. Gavin Newsom, major urban and agricultural water suppliers, and the state and federal agencies tasked with exporting Delta water to farms and cities further south. They back a $2.9 billion pact reached three years ago that would allow water users to help restore fish habitat and forgo some water, rather than face strict requirements mandating how much water must remain in the rivers. On Thursday, staff with the State Water Resources Control Board threw their support behind the pact as the major path forward in a long-awaited update. Next comes a period of public comment and hearings before the water board's five governor-appointed members will consider adopting the plan. The pact, backed by $1.5 billion in state funding, is called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program but better known as the 'voluntary agreements.' Under the plan, if adopted, those who don't sign on to the deal would face minimum flow requirements, which the water board may also consider adopting if the voluntary agreements fail to show 'sufficient benefits' at the end of an eight year term. The stakes are high for revamping the Delta's rulebook as fish populations plummet, commercial salmon fishing faces an unprecedented third year of shutdowns, and farmers struggle with unpredictable water supplies and restrictions on groundwater pumping. Participants in the deal — including Westlands Water District, the nation's largest agricultural supplier — say the Newsom-backed voluntary agreements will keep water flowing for farms and cities, and promote restoration of floodplains and other river features. 'It's a false narrative that it's people in cities, against agriculture, against fish. I think we as Californians need all of that to be able to function,' said Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands Water District. 'We can actually maintain water delivery for our cities and our farms, but we can actually also be pretty thoughtful for our ecological systems.' But opponents are dismayed. They say that the voluntary agreements provide too little water and too little habitat to protect the fragile Delta ecosystem and the fish, industries and residents that rely on it. 'This latest plan is a shocking display of cowardice,' said Jon Rosenfield, science director of San Francisco Baykeeper. 'Even if the pledged water is delivered as promised, which is a big if, it barely moves the needle on the lack of adequate flows for fish, wildlife, fisheries and the communities that depend on those things,' Rosenfield said. Newsom also said today that he intended to use the budget process to push through a bill that would waive requirements under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act for water quality control plans like this one. Lawmakers punted on Newsom's bill earlier this summer during the thick of budget negotiations, but could still take it up before the end of session. Environmental groups fear that, if the bill passes, it could limit disclosures about how the plan would affect the Bay-Delta, and their ability to sue. Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, said the exemption is 'bordering on undemocratic because you are cutting out the public in an important process … For the Bay-Delta, that is particularly important.' Rosenfield added: 'If it's such a great plan, why would you want to hide the results from the public?' Epicenter of water wars California's Bay-Delta has long been the epicenter of the state's water wars. The watershed, formed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, stretches from about Fresno to beyond the Oregon border and drains about 40% of California. It's the core of the state's water supply, supports much of the state's imperiled commercial salmon fishery, and is home to hundreds of native plant and animal species. For years, state regulators have warned that the Delta is experiencing an 'ecological crisis' with a 'prolonged and precipitous decline in numerous native species,' including endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the tiny Delta smelt. Current requirements have 'failed to protect fish and wildlife' and must be updated 'in an expedited manner to halt and reverse the ecosystem collapse,' according to a 2017 fact sheet from the water board. But the rulebook hasn't been meaningfully updated in 30 years. State regulators adopted new flow requirements in 2018 for portions of the Lower San Joaquin River and its major tributaries, but they have been tied up by litigation and, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, by 'consideration of (voluntary agreements).' They have not yet been implemented. Now, regulators are considering updates for the rest of the watershed. This much larger portion includes the Sacramento River and its tributaries as well as the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne Rivers and the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Newsom has long pushed for a deal with water-users over mandates. 'Our first task is to cross the finish line on real agreements to save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta,' he said in his first State of the State address. 'We must get this done — for the resilience of our mighty rivers, the stability of our agriculture sector, and the millions who depend on this water every day.' State officials say that they expect this approach will engender more cooperation and avoid lawsuits that could delay action. 'Sometimes people say, 'Well, isn't it just politics and not science that's driving this?'' Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary of Natural Resources, which supports the agreements, told CalMatters in April 2024 before a series of workshops about the agreements. 'And I say, 'Well, ultimately, in California water, the decisions are often validated through legal challenge.'' The voluntary agreements are the culmination of years of negotiations with powerful urban and agricultural suppliers such as the Westlands Water District and the agencies that make up the State Water Contractors. Though called 'voluntary,' water board executive director Eric Oppenheimer says they would still be legally enforceable. The proposal meters out an average of up to 700,000 acre-feet of water in certain years, according to state officials — enough to supply up to 2.5 million households for a year. The amount varies, though depending on how wet or dry the year. Water users have not committed to leaving any additional water in several rivers including the Sacramento, Yuba, and Feather in critically dry years. It also calls for restoration of around 45,000 acres of spawning, rearing and floodplain habitats, backed by about $1.5 billion in state funding, $600 million from the water providers, and $740 million expected from federal funds, according to Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors. By also promoting habitat restoration under the voluntary agreements, 'we think we can achieve significant ecosystem improvements, and we think it can be done with a lower water supply impact,' said Eric Oppenheimer, executive director of the State Water Resources Control Board. But, he said, at the end of eight years, if the 'board made a determination that the voluntary agreement pathway wasn't achieving sufficient benefits, it could then start a process to shift over to the regulatory pathway.' The regulatory pathway, by contrast, calls for maintaining flows of 35% to 55% of the amount of water that the rivers would have carried were they not dammed or diverted — an amount called unimpaired flow. For some, rain-fed tributaries that provide municipal supplies, there would be no flow requirement at all in the driest conditions. Water suppliers say such mandates would strike a major blow to their ability to provide water for cities and farms, and touted the habitat projects supported by the voluntary agreements. 'We're talking … about significant reductions in delivery to the San Joaquin Valley during dry years,' Pierre said. 'I would never argue that fish don't need water. They of course do. But in that water are things like refuge and food and adequate temperatures that are really being promoted.' Like a fish needs water Opponents, however, say there is far too little water provided in the voluntary agreements, and that the updated flow requirements are also far weaker than previous proposals. State officials did not provide a comparison between the two pathways. Oppenheimer said that the comparison is not 'apples to apples' because of the inclusion of habitat restoration efforts under the voluntary agreements. 'I know everybody wants to know how the two compare when you compare flow. But you know, from my perspective, it's not a valid comparison,' he said. 'There is no translation between habitat and water.' That, environmentalists say, is the problem. Fish habitat, they say, needs to be wet. 'For fish, flow is the habitat. There is no evidence that restoring floodplains or tidal marshes, in the absence of adequate flow, produces any benefit,' Rosenfield said. Conservationists and fishing organizations also fear that the voluntary agreements would pave the way for more water to be diverted from the Delta by future water projects such as Sites Reservoir and the deeply controversial Delta tunnel. A state analysis, published in 2023, reported that without additional protections, 'existing flows may be reduced in the future, particularly with climate change and additional water development.' Opponents have also warned that thousands of acres of the habitat restoration promised under the voluntary agreements are already in the works, which they say reduces how much the deal would benefit fish species. (Pierre counters that this is a plus of the agreements, and reflects early action during negotiations.) And critics say that the voluntary agreements require money and cooperation from a federal government that has slashed environmental programs and called for 'Putting People over Fish' in a memorandum issued on President Trump's first day in office. 'This is a sad day for the State Water Board and one more on a long list of bad days for salmon,' Scott Artis, executive director, Golden State Salmon Association, said in a statement. 'Commercial fishing in California has been closed for three years because of unsustainable water diversions. This looks like a plan to kill California's most important wild salmon runs and fishing jobs.' ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
