By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
California bans sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035
Local legislators weigh in on Newsom’s executive order
electric cars
California is home to 34 electric vehicle companies and accounts for about half of the nation’s electric vehicle market (Photo contributed).

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that California will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 15 years, establishing an official timeline in the state’s recent bid to lead the U.S. in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The plan, part of an executive order signed by Newsom on Wednesday, aims to phase out the sale of new passenger cars and trucks which run on gasoline by 2035 and instead encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles. The order won’t stop people from owning gas-powered cars or from selling them on the used car market, but will end the sale of all new such vehicles. In California, the state’s population of nearly 40 million purchases one out of every 10 new cars sold in the country.

According to Newsom’s office, transportation currently accounts for more than 50 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. Gas-powered vehicles also contribute to 80 percent of smog-forming pollution and 95 percent of toxic diesel emissions.

California joins 15 countries across the globe which have also committed to phasing out gasoline-powered cars. 

“This is the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change,” Newsom said. “For too many decades, we have allowed cars to pollute the air that our children and families breathe. Californians shouldn’t have to worry if our cars are giving our kids asthma. Our cars shouldn’t make wildfires worse – and create more days filled with smoky air. Cars shouldn’t melt glaciers or raise sea levels threatening our cherished beaches and coastlines.”

Through regulations developed by the California Air Resources Board following the order, it is estimated that the plan would achieve more than a 35 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an 80 percent improvement in oxides of nitrogen emissions from cars statewide. In addition, the order calls for operations of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles shall be 100 percent zero emission by 2045, with the mandate going into effect by 2035 for drayage trucks. 

The order will shift the zero-emissions market into overdrive, requiring state agencies to partner with the private sector to accelerate deployment of affordable fueling and charging options. It also requires support of new and used zero-emission vehicle markets to provide broad accessibility to zero-emission vehicles for all Californians.

California is home to 34 electric vehicle companies, including Tesla Inc., and accounts for about half of the nation’s electric vehicle market. 

"We agree with Gov. Newsom that it's time to take urgent action to address climate change," Ford Motor Co. said in the statement. "That's why we're proud to stand with California in achieving meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reductions in our vehicles."

While Ford may agree with Newsom, Turlock’s state legislators do not.

Assemblyman Heath Flora took issue with the announcement, which came as his office helps hundreds of constituents process delayed unemployment claims and others keeps the doors to their small businesses open. Some of the only businesses still allowed to operate in the era of COVID-19 are automobile dealerships, he pointed out, which he stated already “are barely able to survive” under existing executive orders.

“Every utopian green energy idea that comes out of the Bay Area ends up hurting those of us in the Central Valley the most,” Flora said. “They act like they care about working class communities, and then they come up with ideas like this during one of the most challenging times in our state’s history.”

Sen. Andreas Borgeas believes the executive order doesn’t address California’s “most pressing needs.”

“The state is struggling with historic wildfires, businesses shuttered, people out of work, a housing crisis and the pandemic, yet the Governor is more concerned about advancing a radical agenda than tackling relevant issues that affect all Californians,” Borgeas said. “With virtually no infrastructure to support the holistic eradication of gas vehicles, and the threat of rolling electrical blackouts, the Governor has unilaterally decided to move forward without consultation from the Legislature. Governor, focus on forest management, CEQA reform and getting our economy back on track.”

The executive order also sets clear deliverables for new health and safety regulations that protect workers and communities from the impacts of oil extraction. It supports companies who transition their upstream and downstream oil production operations to cleaner alternatives and also directs the state to make sure taxpayers are not stuck with the bill to safely close and remediate former oil fields. The Governor is also asking the Legislature to end the issuance of new hydraulic fracturing permits by 2024.

The executive order directs state agencies to develop strategies for an integrated, statewide rail and transit network, and incorporate safe and accessible infrastructure into projects to support bicycle and pedestrian options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

To view the executive order in full, visit www.gov.ca.gov

 

Modesto Irrigation District director accused of water theft, board will investigate
MID
Modesto Irrigation District Director Larry Byrd (left) attends a regular board meeting on Aug. 12 (GARTH STAPLEY/The Modesto Focus).

By GARTH STAPLEY

CV Journalism Collaborative

The Modesto Irrigation District will look into accusations that one of its top elected leaders has stolen water, the lifeblood of the public utility.

Speculation that longtime Director Larry Byrd has used MID water to nourish almond trees outside district boundaries near La Grange has spilled into the agency’s boardroom in two recent meetings, including last week.

MID Board President Robert Frobose, whose position gives him authority to commission investigations, cited hopes of shoring up public trust in confirming that the accusation is being taken seriously.

“I expect the district will be conducting a thorough and independent examination of the allegations forthwith,” Frobose said Sept. 12 in response to a Modesto Focus inquiry. “We deeply care about ensuring public trust is maintained along with responsible water management, while also ensuring this is looked at independently and fairly.”

Byrd, a board director since 2011, did not respond to The Modesto Focus’ questions about the allegations or an investigation.

MID has vast impact on Valley life. The district provided farmwater to 2,300 growers with 66,000 acres, and also provides electricity to 133,000 customer accounts in Modesto, Salida, Waterford and Mountain House and parts of Ripon, Escalon, Oakdale, and Riverbank. About half of Modesto’s tap water comes from treated MID river water.

On Sept. 9, members of the audience publicly urged Byrd to address the accusations. Byrd stayed silent, as he did July 8 when an audience member, citing “satellite imaging” evidence, first raised the suspicion.

Since then, Byrd has denied wrongdoing in a series of six articles of the Valley Citizen online publication. They include interviews with a former longtime employee of Byrd casting doubt on Byrd’s version of the story.

Valley Citizen writer Eric Caine says Byrd, who also farms in the Waterford area, and his partners planted 500 acres of almond trees in 2015 on land where Byrd previously ran cattle near La Grange. 

 

Water theft allegations leave a stain on Modesto Irrigation District

Caine quoted two MID officials – Frobose and former board director Nick Blom – repeating the common perception that Byrd’s entire La Grange orchard was entitled to MID water. But more than 100 acres reportedly are outside district boundaries, the Valley Citizen says.

The allegations are “a blemish on MID,” said Bill Lyons, noting his own nine years on the board (1984 to 1993) during the public comment portion of the Sept. 9 board meeting. “There is an opportunity for you, Larry, to clear the record, and I urge you to do so.”

Anthony Ratto also rose to speak from the audience at the same meeting, suggesting that Byrd’s ardent support two years ago for selling surplus MID water to east Stanislaus growers outside district boundaries at a below-market price makes more sense in light of the recent allegations. When such sales were hotly debated in 2023, many assumed Byrd was advocating for his neighbors; now it seems it was for “personal benefit,” Ratto said.

Faced with the sober claims, the MID board has little choice but to investigate one of their own, said Ripon attorney Stacy Henderson. 

She noted MID’s history of holding others accountable when suspected of similar wrongdoing. 

“I don’t see any reason to take any different approach just because it’s a (board) director accused of misusing the district’s water,” she said.

Henderson for years has represented the interests of growers on the west end of MID boundaries in a long-running feud with those on the east, whose pumping of groundwater to sustain millions of nut trees is under scrutiny.

 

East Stanislaus aquifer in danger from overpumping

In 2023, east-side growers pumped a whopping 70,000 more acre-feet of groundwater than seeped into its underground aquifer, records show. By comparison, that’s about the same total amount pumped from wells each year, on average, by the cities of Modesto, Oakdale, Riverbank and Waterford plus MID and the Oakdale Irrigation District combined, according to west side attorneys. The deficit dropped a bit in 2024, to 58,500 acre-feet.

When they have surplus, both OID and MID have offered help to east-side growers in the form of surface water from the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, respectively, and some have taken OID water at $200 per acre-foot. But none has signed up for MID water offered at the same price, insisting – with Byrd leading the charge – that it be lowered to $60 an acre-foot, to encourage participation.

No other portion of the Modesto subbasin, stretching across much of Stanislaus County, is in danger of depleting the aquifer under it. But the entire area could face consequences for the crisis on the east end when new state groundwater regulations under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act kick in, in early 2027.

The region’s latest plan to address groundwater is being developed, with public hearings hosted by the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association coming in the fall and a vote expected in January. Outcomes are likely to include pumping restrictions and may feature intrusion by state water officials.

Some observers say the entire area should participate in solving the problem on the east, citing agriculture as the backbone industry of the Stanislaus economy.

Others contend that farming is a business venture like any other, subject to risk. Speculators paid comparatively little for east-side property, much of it former low-value grazing land with no rights to surface water, and turned it into orchards, sometimes without a reliable water source. Why, west-side interests say, should people across the county bail out what they consider unwise investments in the east?

Heavy hitters in east v. west Stanislaus water debate

All three Sept. 9 speakers – Henderson, Ratto and Lyons – represent the west; the latter is a former state agriculture secretary. Advocates for the east include former Congressman John Duarte and his wife, Alexandra, an announced candidate for a state Senate seat in next year’s election.

The west has tried to link eastern interests to Stanislaus County Supervisor Terry Withrow, a certified public accountant whose clients include people doing business with Byrd. Withrow has said he has no financial interest in the water feud, but to help facilitate resolution, he convened a rare meeting of the warring parties in August. Many left with increased understanding but no consensus, several told The Modesto Focus.

MID officials in 2015 accused six customers of misusing water, fined them and cut off their irrigation water, but soon after reinstated three of them and canceled their penalties. 

A 2019 court ruling in the case of Nichols v. MID made clear that using district water outside the district is unlawful, even if the land in question is next to the district.

The MID board is no stranger to conflict. Just last month, the board censured board director Janice Keating for mistreating staff, and she lost a gender discrimination lawsuit last year against Frobose. Past boards reprimanded their own and defended lawsuits against claims of discrimination and retaliation.

— Garth Stapley is the accountability reporter for The Modesto Focus, a project of the nonprofit Central Valley Journalism Collaborative. Contact Stapley at garth@cvlocaljournalism.org.