Nguyen, M.D., is chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics California Expert Committee on Climate Change and Environmental Health, and co-founder of San Diego Pediatricians for Clean Air. She lives in San Diego. Rhodes is a premed advocacy intern for the American Academy of Pediatrics California Committee on Environmental Health and lives in San Diego.

California is often billed as a national leader on environmental legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This is true, which is why it can be easy to forget that we are also a major oil-producing state. The fossil fuels industry has large interests in oil wells in California — both those existing and the ability to add more. While greenhouse gases are a concern related to this industry, petrochemical byproducts are also very hazardous to human health. Today even populated areas are often targeted for oil drilling, which makes safety standards a necessity to keep oil wells a minimum safe distance from sensitive populations. Senate Bill 1137 — signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 — would have provided just that: meaningful safety setbacks around oil wells to protect public health. Unfortunately, with the industry’s successful effort to delay SB 1137, California currently has nothing of the sort.

Unlike most oil-producing states, California has somewhat limited regulations on where oil wells can be placed. Hospitals, daycare centers, shopping malls and neighborhoods could all legally have an oil well pumping in their parking lot as far as state law is concerned.

Advertisement

But Senate Bill 1137 would have introduced a 3,200-foot health and safety setback for the permitting of new oil wells or existing well repairs. This means that new oil wells could no longer be constructed in dangerous proximity to populations, and that there would be no permits for the repairs of existing wells in these areas.

The bill would have amounted to the phase-out of all oil drilling in unsafe areas in California, protecting countless Californians from pollution around oil wells and related health impacts. Senate Bill 1137 was passed in August 2022, but the oil industry spent millions of dollars on lobbying to delay the bill and put it to a referendum for voters to approve. In November, Californians will determine the fate of Senate Bill 1137 via the California Oil and Gas Well Regulations Referendum and must decide whether they want this important protection.

Oil wells emit numerous air pollutants which can seriously impact people nearby. A 14-year Stanford research project found elevated levels of toxic particulate matter (PM 2.5), volatile organic compounds, ozone, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide within a 2.5-mile radius of oil wells in California. Taken together, these can cause respiratory infections, asthma, preterm birth and heart disease. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency warns of air toxics emitted by the industry, including benzene, ethylbenzene and n-hexane. These are all known or strongly suspected of being linked to cancer and other serious health hazards. While the 3,200-foot safety setback might seem ambitious, it was recommended as a minimum by an independent council of experts. In 2021, the California Oil and Gas Public Health Rulemaking Scientific Advisory Panel told California officials that 1 kilometer — a little more than 3,200 feet — is the minimum distance to establish between oil wells and sensitive populations in order to protect public health.

The most important consideration for Senate Bill1137 may be the protection of children in our state. Children are at increased risk from all the pollutants found near oil wells, simply because their metabolisms require them to take in much more air and water — and, thus, pollutants relative to their body weights — than adults. Their developing bodies and brains can also be affected by these air pollutants differently than adults, resulting in behavioral problems that can impact their performance in school. These risks are not spread equally; like so many geographic determinants of health, Black and Latinx communities in California are at much higher risk of exposure to oil wells. Fundamentally, Senate Bill 1137 is a matter of social justice. It could safeguard the health and futures of the most vulnerable Californians. At the American Academy of Pediatrics California, we encourage you to go out on Nov. 5 and vote to “keep the law” and uphold Senate Bill 1137!

The San Diego Wildlife Alliance announced it welcomed Emaay, the 250th California condor chick at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Emaay’s name comes from the Kumeya word for sky. The mother is MexWe and the father is Xol-Xol, the first California condor brought into human care under the California Condor Recovery Program in 1982.

According to an organizational release, the egg was placed in an incubator before hatching to be monitored by the wildlife care team.¹ The team began to suspect malposition and brought the egg to the Paul Hater Veterinary Medical Center for a CT, which determined the chick’s position was not a concern. The chick successfully pipped and was brought back to the parents for hatching. The nest for the family is equipped with an infrared camera so the team can monitor the hatching process 24/7. The San Diego Wildlife Alliance welcomed Emaay in the early hours of March 16, and their gender has not been determined yet. Emaay is doing well under the care of their very attentive parents, according to the release.

"Reaching this milestone feels incredible," said Nora Willis, senior wildlife care specialist, at San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, in the release.¹ "Seeing the success that the San Diego Zoo Safari Park has had—and the success of the California Condor Recovery Program as a whole—is inspiring. There's still a long way to go but being part of this and helping the species recover is life-changing."

The California condor egg receiving a CT at the Paul Hater Veterinary Medical Center (Image courtesy of San Diego Zoo Safari Park)

Xol-Xol was rescued from the Sespe Condor Sanctuary at 3 months old after being neglected by his parents. He was then brought to the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, making him the first California condor to be brought into human care under the California Condor Recovery Program in 1982. Now, Xol-Xol fathered 41 chicks in 1993 and many have been reintroduced into their native habitat. In 2025, Emaay is expected to join the native population.

The San Diego Zoo has a long history of helping the California condor. In 1929, the zoo received its first California condor after a couple found it with a damaged wing in Ventura, California.² Although the bird had to have its wing amputated, it has been active and healthy for over 10 years The US Fish and Wild Service and the California Department of Fish and Game gave the San Diego Wildlife Alliance permission to begin the first zoological propagation program for these birds when there was only 22 left in the world.

In 1983, the San Diego Zoo received its first condor egg after it was moved from the wilderness into human care for artificial incubation. Sisquoc was then the first California Condor to ever hatch in a zoo on March 30, 1983.² Now at least 50 California condors have rejoined their native habitat with 12-15 condors hatched in the habitat every year. The condors hatched in human care are reintroduced in the United States across 5 reintroduction sites: 1 in northern Arizona at the Vermillion Cliffs and 4 in California, including Ventana Wilderness in Big Sur, Pinnacles National Monument, Yurok Ancestral Territory, and Redwood National Park, and the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge in the Los Padres National Forest.¹

References

Extended deadlines to file and pay taxes may be available for individuals, families and businesses who live in San Diego County.

Continuing to support Californians as they recover from recent storms, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approved a request from Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to extend tax deadlines for California taxpayers in San Diego County to June 17, 2024.

These extensions come following a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration announced on February 19, 2024.

Taxpayers should consult a tax professional for complete details.

Tax relief for disasters

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Franchise Tax Board (FTB) may grant individuals and businesses additional time to file or pay when a major disaster in their area is declared by the federal or state government. California generally follows the IRS extended deadlines to file and pay taxes. Impacted taxpayers may also be eligible to claim a disaster loss on their tax return.

Affected individuals and businesses in San Diego County now have until June 17 to file their tax returns and pay federal and state taxes due between January 21 through June 17, 2024. Payments due on June 17 remain due on that date. This extension to file and pay includes the following:

For any given Emergency Measure or Major Disaster Declaration that triggers IRS tax relief/postponement in California, the State will evaluate any filing or payment postponement in response to each declaration or emergency on a case-by-case basis, consistent with existing authority per Revenue and Taxation Code section 18572.

Taxpayers affected by a presidentially declared disaster may claim a deduction for a disaster loss. Additional information and instructions are available in FTB Publication 1034, Disaster Loss: How to Claim a State Tax Deduction.

Taxpayers can claim a disaster loss in one of two ways. They may claim the disaster loss for the 2024 tax year when they file their return next spring, or they may claim the loss against 2023 income on this year’s return. An amended return may be filed by those who already have filed this year. The advantage of claiming the disaster loss on a tax year 2023 return is that FTB can issue a refund sooner.

If an affected taxpayer receives a late filing or late payment penalty notice related to the postponement period, the taxpayer should call the number on the notice to have the penalty abated.

Disaster victims also may receive free copies of their state returns to replace those lost or damaged. Taxpayers may complete form FTB 3516 and write the name of the disaster in blue or black ink at the top of the request.

FTB notes the following existing statutory provisions that could provide additional relief to taxpayers automatically or upon request and based on their facts and circumstances:

Additional information on these items above can be found on FTB’s website.

Additional Information

One of the lesser-known privileges of being an elected official in California is the right to ask corporations and wealthy individuals to make donations to one’s favorite charities.

The contributions, which are known as behested payments, can come in the form of cash or in-kind donations. They are used to raise millions of dollars from special interests that benefit tax-exempt organizations.

As part of the system of checks and balances, elected officials must publicly disclose payments made at their behest within 30 days, once they exceed $5,000 in any 12-month period.

Advertisement

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria acknowledged in a public filing last week that he repeatedly violated the law by not reporting a series of contributions made to charities by outside donors at his behest.

According to the San Diego Ethics Commission, Gloria failed to properly report 10 separate contributions he solicited from private contributors — many of whom donated to For All of Us, the charity he helped set up in early 2021 to support his favored causes.

“Respondent violated (San Diego Municipal Code) by failing to timely file Forms 803 to disclose behested payments,” the agreement dated April 11 says.

Gloria agreed to pay a $10,500 fine to resolve the case.

The stipulation shows that the ethics investigation was opened shortly after The San Diego Union-Tribune asked the mayor’s office about tens of thousands of dollars Gloria raised and spent on behalf of For All of Us, the tax-exempt entity named after his 2020 campaign slogan.

Watchdog

For subscribers

May 30, 2023

According to the Ethics Commission, Gloria disclosed tens of thousands of dollars in behested payments beginning days after the Union-Tribune first asked his office about the charity.

Most of those donations were reported hundreds of days late, including over $5,700 that For All of Us paid to cater a thank-you event to Gloria. That disclosure was 679 days overdue. The charity also had failed to report almost $6,000 in spending for a back-to-school event and supplies.

An aide to Gloria said the mayor self-reported the payments beginning last May, after the Union-Tribune raised questions about the contributions.

“Upon discovering these regrettable oversights, our office immediately filed the necessary documentation,” mayoral spokesperson Rachel Laing said by email.

“Our staff has undergone multiple trainings to recognize when behested payment filings might be required in order to be in full compliance in the future,” she added.

Watchdog

June 15, 2023

Gloria served two terms on the City Council and two terms in the state Assembly before becoming mayor and therefore has been obliged to file Forms 803 for more than 15 years.

In all, Gloria and For All of Us did not properly report some $65,000 in donations and spending as required.

Besides the monetary penalty, the mayor also agreed to “take necessary and prudent precautions to ensure compliance with all provisions of the Ethics Ordinance in the future.”

The $10,500 fine is one of the larger sanctions issued by the ethics panel.

Supporters of behested payments say the rules allow elected officials to generate revenue for needy community groups that might not otherwise receive public support.

Critics of the practice complain that the solicitations are a way for special interests to curry favor with politicians in order to help gain support for permit applications, development plans or other policy objectives.

Gloria is not the only local elected official to have helped establish a charity to benefit his office‘s work.

Former Mayor Kevin Faulconer famously raised millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy donors for local nonprofit organizations, including one he established after first winning election in 2014.

Watchdog

May 30, 2023

The entity Faulconer called One San Diego adopted a mission statement that included the legal ability to pay for virtually anything the mayor saw fit, including political polling, receptions, office furniture and other expenses.

“The corporation will be closely related to the city of San Diego, insofar as one of the corporation’s purposes is to relieve the city of costs and burden of conducting activities on behalf of the Office of the Mayor,” the One San Diego founding documents said.

One San Diego folded as an entity weeks after Faulconer vacated the Mayor’s Office due to term limits.

Other local elected officials have raised money for local charities from donors without setting up a specific charity to direct the spending.

San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott reported a $100,000 behested payment last year from the Golden Door spa to the Your Safe Place Foundation, a charity set up to support a program in her own office.

The charity was listed as legally delinquent at the time the donation was made, the Union-Tribune reported.

Watchdog

May 7, 2023

Colin Parent, the La Mesa council member now running for state Assembly, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in behested payments. Most of that money went to the charity he runs called Circulate San Diego, the Union-Tribune reported last year.

Members of the San Diego City Council and the county Board of Supervisors also have reported soliciting charitable contributions to nonprofit groups whose missions they support.

So did the former district attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, and the former sheriff, Bill Gore. The charity Dumanis had raised money for was unregistered at the time. Gore was named by Gloria to the ethics commission last year before withdrawing his name amid opposition.

Watchdog

Oct. 30, 2023

So far this year, Gloria has reported over $300,000 in behested payments, city clerk’s records show.

Most of those contributions were directed to San Diegans Together Tackling Homelessness, the nonprofit created by the mayor to raise money to fund services for unhoused people.

No other San Diego city officials have reported behested payments in more than two years.

The suit claims the law is unconstitutional and bars otherwise law-abiding citizens of other states from exercising their Second Amendment rights in California

A firearms advocacy group and three people who live in Pennsylvania, Idaho and New Mexico filed a lawsuit Thursday in San Diego federal court challenging a state law that mostly bans non-California residents from carrying guns in the state.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulation violates the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment and should be overturned. It claims the law is “unconstitutionally restrictive” and bars the plaintiffs from carrying guns in California even though each have been issued concealed-carry permits in their home states.

“Individuals like Plaintiffs do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures,” the lawsuit alleges. “They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state.”

Advertisement

The office of state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is the named defendant in the case, did not respond to a request for comment. Bonta’s office has vigorously defended the state’s challenged gun laws and other weapons laws in the past.

Courts

For subscribers

March 6, 2023

The lawsuit alleges that the three plaintiffs live out of state and wish to carry firearms when they visit California but are legally barred from doing so. The suit claims that the main exception to the law — for certain people who live out of state but operate a business in California and spend significant time at the business — is so narrow that it’s irrelevant.

Included among the plaintiffs is Christopher Hoffman, a Pittsburgh resident who lived in San Diego County between 1990 and 2012. According to the lawsuit, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department previously issued Hoffman a concealed-carry weapon, or CCW, license on multiple occasions when he resided in the county.

“Hoffman ... frequently returns to San Diego County to visit family and friends,” the lawsuit states. “Hoffman desires to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while he visits California and would do so if California law permitted him to.”

The suit makes similar claims as to plaintiffs Chad Orrin, a former California resident who now lives in Idaho, and Jennifer Sensiba, a New Mexico resident. All three of the individual plaintiffs are members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is also a plaintiff in the suit.

“The right to bear arms doesn’t end at California’s border,” Brandon Combs, founder and president of Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement. “We look forward to eliminating this unconstitutional ban and restoring liberty in the Golden State.”

The suit is the latest in a long list of challenges to California’s strict weapons laws filed in San Diego federal court in recent years. Other lawsuits have challenged the state’s bans on assault rifles, large-capacity magazines, frequent gun purchases and switchblades.

San Diego became a favorite venue for such challenges thanks in part to the decisions of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who so frequently ruled in favor of striking down California’s weapons laws that gun enthusiasts gave him the moniker “St. Benitez.” For a time, Second Amendment advocates used a local court rule regarding related cases to get weapons challenges to Benitez’s courtroom even after those cases were initially and randomly assigned to different judges.

The local court amended that rule last year even before so-called judge shopping become a national issue. Last month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new guidance aimed at ensuring constitutional cases with nationwide implications be assigned randomly, and this week Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell each proposed bills to change how cases are assigned.

The suit challenging California’s non-resident gun ban was randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo.

Gun rights groups have found success in the courts with various judges over the better part of the past two years stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new standard for analyzing the legality of weapons restrictions.

Courts

For subscribers

Nov. 27, 2022

Courts considering whether modern gun regulations are legal must now make their decisions based on the “Second Amendment’s plain text” and must ensure modern laws are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” according to the Bruen decision.

Under that analysis, Benitez and other federal judges in San Diego have over the past year overturned California laws banning assault rifles, outlawing billy clubs, imposing background checks for ammunition purchases and banning certain “unsafe” handguns. All of those rulings are under appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.