By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
City Council to consider rescinding health order fines, issuing temporary outdoor business permits
restaurant
The Turlock City Council is set to revisit its health order violation fines.

The Turlock City Council is set to consider on Tuesday eliminating fines for violating public health orders and ways to allow businesses more room to operate as reopening efforts continue.

One month after adopting administrative fines for violating shelter-in-place orders given by Governor Gavin Newsom and the Stanislaus County Health Officer to limit the spread of the coronavirus, the Turlock City Council will consider eliminating those fines.

On April 14, the Turlock City Council unanimously approved Ordinance No. 1277-CS, adopting the Governor’s Executive Order and the County Health Order with a mechanism for enforcement by the issuance of fines through an administrative citation. The fines adopted were $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation and $1,000 for the third and any subsequent violations.

During the April Council meeting, Turlock Police Chief Nino Amirfar said the administrative fines would only be used after a business and/or resident was warned that they are violating shelter-in-place orders.

“We have been utilizing educational processes throughout the city and it has been working excellently. I really do not intend to, nor do I want to, issue these types of citations. But it is a tool to utilize these types of administrative cites and before we do such, we will try to gain compliance always,” said Amirfar on April 14.

On Tuesday, the Council will consider amending the ordinance to eliminate the fine schedule and have shelter-in-place order violations only be enforced as a public nuisance.

It’s unclear what would constitute a public nuisance enforcement related to violating health orders. The Turlock Municipal Code covers nuisances related to noise, weeds and abandoned vehicles, but not public health order violations. All of the nuisances covered in the Municipal Code include administrative fines, such as the $50 fine is a public nuisance is declared for repairing or dismantling a vehicle within the view of persons traveling on the public-right-of-way.

If all fines are eliminated, the enforcement may be just a written reprimand for ignoring the health orders.

As of Monday, the City of Turlock has not issued any administrative fines related to the public health orders, according to city attorney Doug White.

The request to revisit the health order fines came from Mayor Amy Bublak. The Mayor declined to comment for this story about her reasons for wanting the item on the agenda, stating she “will discuss it in public so as not to violate our public’s opportunity to have their say first.”

Other Council members are not in support of this measure.

"The Mayor was the only member on the council that thought this item was necessary to revisit,” said Vice Mayor Andrew Nosrati. “As Chief Amirfar indicated, we have been able to reach 100% compliance through education efforts and by working with our business community. A fine of $250 would only be pursued for blatant disregard of public health orders, and an unwillingness to work with law officers and not a single one has yet been issued. 

“This is a nonissue, it is purely political, and as most would agree, does not act in the best interest of our overall community. It punishes law abiding business owners and endangers the health of the vulnerable. 

“Furthermore, this jeopardizes our city financially in multiple ways. As was shown in last week's actions by the state, a city that undermines public health orders would risk economic relief from disaster funds and enabling lawlessness, which this does, would leave us at greater vulnerability for spread of the virus requiring reversal of the gradual reopening efforts we are currently engaged in.

“I find it disappointing that there are elected officials that would choose this time, where unity and faith in our government’s ability to lead is needed, to pursue something so divisive, risky, and in opposition to our general well-being."

“We agreed as a council to follow recommendations from the public health officer and work with the Stanislaus County,” said Councilmember Becky Arellano. “We are still learning and yet do not fully understand the virus and its course running through our community.   We have to be sensible in business as well as in community.  We do have to protect our democracy and our health at the same time. We are working proactively to ensure our economy can recover and proceed in  a ‘new normal’ capacity.  There is no time for politics and this agenda item is just what this is. We have had 100% compliance so to waste our time for political nonsense at this time is a tragedy.”

“We are all committed to supporting local businesses and to reopening our economy as soon and as safely as possible,” said Councilmember Nicole Larson. “We agreed to follow recommendations from our public health official and the state to ensure the health and safety of our community. On Tuesday we are discussing meaningful ways to support the reopening businesses by creating supportive measures like flexible outdoor operations permits and encouraging residents to wear face coverings when out in public. There is still much work to be done as this situation is continually evolving. The decisions we make during our gradually reopening of our economy must be driven by data, science, and public health experts while weighing the economic impacts of this pandemic. This leaves no room for politics, personal agendas, or attempts to appease certain interest groups for political gain. We all need to be striving for the same objective - restoring our way of life while saving as many lives as possible.”

Also on Tuesday, the City Council is expected to consider:

·         Adopting a resolution that “strongly recommends” all residents and visitors within the city limits to wear a face mask or covering when leaving their place of residence;

·         Authorizing temporary outdoor operations of qualifying restaurants, bars, wineries and breweries; and

·         Authorizing temporary outdoor operations of qualifying retail and commercial businesses.

The temporary outdoor operations resolutions are meant to allow businesses to use outdoor spaces, such as sidewalks and parking lots, in order to meet social distancing guidelines that are expected to be mandated during economic reopening phases, according to White.

The City Council will hold its regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday. Due to the social distancing health order, the meeting will not be physically open to the public at City Hall. The meeting will be streamed on the City of Turlock’s website and broadcast on Spectrum Channel 2.

Members of the public can also participate in the meeting by Zoom at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87043492784 or join by telephone at 669-900-6833 webinar ID# 870-4349-2784.

 

 

To fight cancer-causing ‘Erin Brockovich’ toxin, California may give water districts legal cover
water

BY RYAN SABALOW AND BRIANNA VACCARI

Special to the Journal

Editor’s note: This story was produced as a collaboration between CalMatters and The Merced Focus.

Lawmakers are poised to give California’s water districts legal cover from lawsuits as they work to meet strict new state standards for a cancer-causing toxic chemical. 

It’s called hexavalent chromium, more commonly known as “chromium-6.” Drinking water with trace amounts of the chemical over long periods has been linked to cancer. 

Last year, state water regulators approved a nation-leading drinking water standard for the chemical, which is found naturally in some California groundwater. In other areas, chromium-6 leached into the water from industrial sites. 

The regulations are intended to protect more than 5 million Californians from the toxin, including in the Central Valley, Inland Empire and along the coast. Water districts say they plan to comply, but they complain the new rules are going to cost tens of millions of dollars, will jack up their customers’ water bills and could take years to complete.

They don’t want to spend even more ratepayer money defending themselves from lawsuits while they work to meet the new standards. Their concerns stem from the fact that they won’t be meeting state rules while upgrades to prevent contamination are underway. Water districts also would have to notify their customers that they’re not meeting the drinking-water standards, which the districts worry could create a wave of lawsuits.

Democratic Sen. Anna Caballero, whose sprawling San Joaquin Valley district includes water utilities affected by the new standard, heard their concerns. 

Bottom of Form

She introduced Senate Bill 466, which aims to give water districts a break from spending ratepayer money on lawsuits as long as they’re making progress toward meeting their state-approved targets. The measure does not restrict state regulators’ enforcement authority.

“This just makes sense,” she said at an Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing last week. “It makes sure that they are protected so that they can put their resources to … bring(ing) the system up to their compliance plan.” 

The bill passed the committee unanimously as it did the Senate earlier this year. It’s likely to be heard by the full Assembly after lawmakers reconvene in August from their summer recess. 

 

Water districts support proposal

The measure has broad support from water districts across the state, including the city of Los Banos, which co-sponsored the bill.

Los Banos operates 11 wells to service 50,000 customers, and so far, the city has seen no evidence that its drinking water is dangerous to drink, Mayor Michael Amabile said.

Nestled just east of the Diablo Range, chromium-6 is naturally occurring in Los Banos’ ground water at varying degrees above the new state standards. During the winter, the city supplements its groundwater with surface water from the nearby Los Banos Creek, which sometimes brings chromium-6 levels down.

It would cost the city around $65 million in infrastructure to bring the city into compliance, Amabile said, which is half of the city’s annual budget.

“People shouldn’t be burdened just because of where they live,” Amabile said. “So if you’re on the east side of the (San Joaquin) Valley, you have absolutely no problems at all. If you’re on the west side of the Valley, you have all these issues.”

The city plans to comply with state requirements, but it’s not clear how the city is going to pay for the upgrades without financial assistance from the state, Amabile said. Any type of study that could propose a solution would take at least a year.

“I really don’t want to go down as the mayor that quadruples water rates, so I need the help from the state,” Amabile said.

At last week’s judiciary committee hearing, Scott Burritt, a representative for the Coachella Valley Water District, said the utility will have to spend $400 million to comply with the new rules – and that’s before anyone sues.

“Domestic water rates are expected to double,” Burritt told the committee. “This will have an enormous impact on the large disadvantaged communities that we serve, and it will also impact the retiree population, which is very large in our service area.”

The district provides drinking water to around 270,000 people in the Coachella Valley, which has naturally occurring chromium-6 in the area.

The influential lobbyists at the Consumer Attorneys of California opposed the original version of the measure, arguing it would have provided near total immunity for water districts, including if one had acted negligently. 

“SB 466 grants public water systems a preemptive and absolute blanket shield from civil liability from negligence (such as causing cancer) related to drinking water with hexavalent chromium … so long as they are implementing — or even awaiting approval of — a compliance plan approved by the state Water Resources Control Board,” the attorneys wrote in a letter opposing the bill. 

But Caballero, an attorney and former Salinas mayor, agreed to amend the bill last week to address the group’s concerns. The Consumer Attorneys’ spokesperson, Mike Roth, said the organization is satisfied with the changes, has removed its opposition and gone neutral on the bill.

Caballero has voted in accordance with the Consumer Attorneys’ positions on legislation 84% of the time, according to the Digital Democracy database

 

The Erin Brockovich chemical

Hexavalent chromium was made infamous by the movie “Erin Brockovich.” The film dramatized Pacific Gas & Electric’s contamination of the water supply in the small California desert town of Hinkley.

Under the standards the state water board approved last year, water suppliers have to limit the chemical in water to no more than 10 parts per billion — equivalent to about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized swimming pool

Levels above the new state limit have been reported in about 330 sources of drinking water in California. 

Public health advocates say the new standard, while an improvement, doesn’t go far enough to reduce cancer risks. The new standard is one of the least protective of all the water contaminants regulated by California, according to a state analysis. 

Under the new standard, for every 2,000 people who drink the water for a lifetime, one person would be at risk of cancer.

Some of the areas affected are the counties of Sacramento, Solano, Santa Cruz, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Monterey and Merced. The highest levels found were in Riverside, Yolo, Los Angeles and Ventura counties, although water suppliers may blend or treat the water to reduce the contaminants there.

The water board last year gave the largest water suppliers two years to comply with the new requirements; smaller ones with fewer than 1,000 connections were given four years. Those that can’t meet the deadlines must create state-approved plans that they’ll need to follow to come into compliance. They could be fined if they don’t. 

In 2023, the California Air Resources Board also approved a ban on use of hexavalent chromium by the chrome plating industry.

CalMatters water reporter Rachel Becker contributed to this story.