By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
New homeless day center coming to Turlock
Turlock City Logo

The City Council approved a contract with We Care Program of Turlock to operate a day center for homeless individuals starting June 1.

This project came about because the City found that most of Turlock’s homeless services operated during evening and night hours, leaving unsheltered persons no place to go during the daytime. The City reached out to We Care and United Samaritans to determine if there was potential for We Care to operate a day use navigation center in the existing United Samaritans building at 275 S. Broadway as part of a six-month pilot program.

“The pilot program that is being initiated and talked about tonight fits in well with our mission statement of having a day center resource. We made that mission statement 20 years ago so…we appreciate the opportunity the Council is offering us,” said We Care Director Maris Sturtevant.

Currently, We Care Program of Turlock operates a 49-bed men’s emergency shelter; five units of supportive housing; rapid rehousing assistance for families for six months to 24 months; a homeless prevention program; and six units of affordable housing.

The day center will operate 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.  Monday through Friday. We Care will lease the building from United Samaritans and will operate the day center.  The day center will be open to any adult seeking shelter during the day time hours, but will not allow animals. Supportive case management services, housing navigation services and rapid rehousing services will also be offered at the day center. 

We Care will be responsible for hiring on-site security.  We Care will also provide street outreach services which can help let people know the day center is available.

Sturtevant explained that the day center would be closing at 3 p.m. because We Care needed to clean the area and prepare for evening meals served at the shelter. A new kitchen/dining area is being built and when finished, the day center could potentially stay open longer.

Not all were in support of the day center program, specifically with its potential impact on the downtown area.

 “We Care would be paid to reach out to the homeless throughout our community to induce them to come to the day center. However, the day center will close at 3 p.m. and all those individuals who have nowhere to go until at least 7 p.m. And we know that many will refuse to stay at We Care and since we cannot enforce our ordinances, logically there would be increase in camping around downtown for the next year. The day center would not be open on weekends, leaving the homeless who were induced to come to the downtown area to wonder around during some of the busiest times for the businesses. This proposal it seems would bring more homeless to the downtown area without having a place for them to go at night. Since the transitional housing facility is not available, the (camping) ordinances cannot be enforced, which will only increase the amount of homeless in the downtown area during late afternoons, early evenings and all weekend long for the next year,” said Turlock resident Ron Bridegroom.

Bridegroom’s remarks prompted a community response.

“I just don’t understand this resentment for doing something for someone who needs help. Wasn’t that the whole point of this person who was here 2,000 years ago?...Why are we so fearful of helping someone who needs help?” said Turlock resident Milt Trieweiler.

Council member Cassandra Abram said she saw a need for this type of program in Turlock.

“There’s been a lot of hand-wringing and opining about the Boise decision. It’s very hard for us as a city to have all the pieces in place to address all the needs that we have in our community. But this is a start. This is a place for people to go in the day,” said Abram.

Abram was referencing a 9th Circuit Court ruling that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.” 

The Council voted to approve the contract 4-1, with Mayor Amy Bublak opposing. The cost of the pilot program is projected to be $178,220, which will be paid out of a successor agency Housing account.

 

 

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.