Episode Transcript
[00:00:05] Speaker A: Welcome to your KMUD News. I'm your news director, April Lewis, and I'm glad to be with you for this broadcast. Tonight we'll have in depth coverage on a new signature initiative opposing further road work in Richardson Grove, the Supreme Court's hearings on glyphosate, and oversight of the Humboldt Sheriff's Office moving to the ordinance phase.
But first, a rundown of today's top stories and headlines. This is KMUD News.
Starting off in national news today, Wednesday, April 29, the Supreme Court deemed a majority black congressional district in Louisiana to be unconstitutional on the basis that relied too heavily on race. The court's decision was split 6:3 along ideological lines, with Justice Elena Kagan accusing the conservative majority of gutting the Voting Rights Act. Reverend Al Sharpton said afterwards that the decision was a bullet in the heart of the voting rights movement. The decision mostly focused on dismantling Section two of the Voting Rights act, which allows the use of race conscious data in redistricting efforts. The decision raises many questions, including when and how race can be used for redistricting maps. The quickest reaction was from the state of Florida, whose state House of Representatives voted within hours of the decision to redraw their state's districts with an aggressive map that would potentially add four new seats for congressional Republicans. Other states are likely to follow in the coming weeks and months as partisan arguments over gerrymandering continue. Also today in national news, former FBI Director James Comey surrendered to law enforcement on Wednesday.
He is due to make a federal court appearance in the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey was charged by the Trump Justice Department of making a threat against the president due to a photo of seashells on a North Carolina beach. We'll keep you updated as those court proceedings continue. In state news, last night's governor's primary debate went a little off the rails. Here's a selection of highlights.
[00:02:11] Speaker B: Had Donald Trump not cut at a trillion dollars out of the Medicaid program, which is called Medi Cal here, we wouldn't be facing three California is losing their health insurance. The first thing we have to do is stop Steve Hilton's daddy, who has endorsed him and said that's what we got to do from becoming the next governor of the state of California. We need someone who's going to fight Donald Trump, not agree with him.
[00:02:36] Speaker C: I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here. What do we care about a cut to medical if we had single payer in California? Absolutely not. If you want socialism, go somewhere else because single payer people Come to America for the best medical coverage and care in the entire world.
[00:02:52] Speaker D: What if you don't have any health care? What are you going to do?
[00:02:54] Speaker C: Ridiculous. I thought. I thought I got to answer.
[00:02:57] Speaker E: I thought we had rules here.
[00:02:59] Speaker D: We're not supposed to go back and forth.
[00:03:00] Speaker B: I thought we had like 45 seconds apiece.
[00:03:02] Speaker F: You do.
[00:03:03] Speaker A: Hold on, Tonio. Pat, they're all. They're all wrong. They're all wrong.
[00:03:06] Speaker G: Let me explain why.
[00:03:07] Speaker A: Give me. Give me one second here.
[00:03:09] Speaker B: I've actually defended the governor in any number of forms when I was attorney general for the state.
[00:03:13] Speaker D: Have you read the emergency power statute?
[00:03:15] Speaker B: I have read the statutes before then.
[00:03:18] Speaker D: That case, you would know that what you're proposing is not in there.
[00:03:21] Speaker C: You can't.
[00:03:22] Speaker B: That's not correct. That's not correct.
I'm the only candidate who's actually declared a state of emergency. We can't have been able to resources and we can't have a governor who
[00:03:32] Speaker D: doesn't understand how the government works.
[00:03:35] Speaker B: You know, and we don't need a talking head from Fox News to tell us how the government works.
[00:03:40] Speaker C: It's the drug and alcohol that we cannot get them into. Prop 36 has to be funded. We have to have mental health and drug and alcohol facilities to put them into.
[00:03:49] Speaker D: What I'm Hearing from you, Mr. Bianco, is just horrendous to blame the victims. We have 10,000 teenagers who are homeless.
[00:03:57] Speaker C: I actually blamed you and your policies,
[00:04:00] Speaker D: but if you have any ideas, share them. Otherwise, stop wasting the public's dollars to steal ballots and to try and keep people from voting.
[00:04:09] Speaker A: We hope future debates with these candidates can bring a little more light and a bit less heat.
In local news, according to Red headed Black Belt, an individual in Trinity county was killed Wednesday morning.
An ATV crash on lower west side road adjacent to Boy Scott Cove Campground near Ruth Lake. Southern Trinity fire responded and found the individual trapped under the four wheeler in the middle of the roadway. In Mendocino County, a series of fraudulent emails are being sent to applicants with planning and building services.
These emails pose as planning and building Services Director Julia Krog and require that additional funds be paid in order to continue processing a permit or or as credit towards a future application. The emails request that correspondence only be continued via email and that the recipient replied to the email to receive wire instructions to submit requested funds. This scam is part of a nationwide scam that has been targeting local and county planning departments. Key indicators that you have received a scam email include if the email is from the domain of sa.com Other emails the department has seen specifically are from krogj.mendocinocounty.govsa.com Please note, all official county emails are received from email addresses with the email domain of mendocinocounty.gov now to our main stories. We begin with the center for Biological Diversity and their newest initiative to stop the Caltrans Richardson Grove Project.
KMWOOD News spoke with Director of Programs Peter Galvin on their letters being sent to Governor Newsom.
[00:05:57] Speaker H: What bothers you the most about the Richardson Grove project? Why should people care and be concerned about this project?
[00:06:03] Speaker I: Very few groves of ancient redwoods remain, and the ones that do, we need to work as hard as we can to protect. And we feel that the risk of shortening the lives of the ancient redwoods by cutting into the roots so extensively runs an unacceptable risk and an unnecessary one as well, given the fact that Caltrans has already widened the number of roads leading to the north coast in the last number of years. And really, this area is the beginning of the redwood curtain and is such an important place, such an iconic state park, that we feel that there are some areas, and this is one of them, that are so scenic and important that the highway should not be widened and that Caltrans should respect the grove and respect the Richardson Grove State park and keep to the footprint that they already have and not run more risk for the ancient redwoods. Because the science shows that the more you cut into the root system, the higher percentage of the root system that is cut into and paved, the greater chance that the tree will experience disease or a mortality event. And when trees can live to be up to 3000 years old, some of these trees are between 1000 and 2000 years old. When a tree can live for 3000 years, the idea that one could shorten the lifespan by 500 or 1000 years, this is very significant. And so when Caltrans says they're not cutting any of the ancient redwoods down, that's correct. But they are cutting into the ancient redwoods in a way that our scientists and arborists have pointed out increases the risk to them and increases the risk that their lifespans are short. And we feel that's unacceptable.
[00:07:54] Speaker A: So with that, do you think there's any way to. Because the crux of this, as far
[00:07:59] Speaker H: as I understand it, is Caltrans wants there to be certification for larger trucks to come through.
[00:08:05] Speaker A: Do you think there's any way to
[00:08:07] Speaker H: accommodate those kinds of vehicles through this
[00:08:09] Speaker A: area without significant environmental impacts?
[00:08:11] Speaker H: Or does the topography of that spot just kind of keep you away from being able to do that.
[00:08:17] Speaker I: Well, there are already exemptions for cattle and moving trucks that have existed for years. And we've pointed out that we didn't feel, you know, that's a separate issue as to whether these FDA oversized trucks should be allowed through this area. But separate from that, we believe that Caltrans could have expanded the exemptions that existed for cattle and moving trucks to accommodate the other trucks if it came down to it. And they chose not to take that option and press forward with the demand to widen.
[00:08:48] Speaker A: And then wanting to ask a little
[00:08:50] Speaker H: bit more about what was specifically in
[00:08:52] Speaker A: your press release today.
[00:08:53] Speaker H: So asking about, you know, how, how
[00:08:55] Speaker A: were these 60,000 signatures obtained and what,
[00:08:59] Speaker H: what action are you looking signature effort?
[00:09:02] Speaker I: So the signatures were obtained through people that are members of the center for Biological Diversity or people who follow us on Facebook or Instagram and other people from around the world, California and around the country and world that were forwarded the alert by friends or colleagues. And so the letter asks Governor Newsom to override his Caltrans highway department and step in and put a stop to this or at least stop the imminent work until a resolution can be reached that doesn't call for cutting into the ancient redwood root systems. And so we're appealing to the governor to use his executive authority to override Caltrans and very much hoping that the governor's office responds positively. We've submitted the petitions, have not yet heard back from them, but are going to be following up and submitting more petitions as thousands a day are streaming in from across the country and across the world. For people who know about and love Richardson Grove State park and ancient redwoods.
[00:10:09] Speaker H: In the press release, your organization also mentioned a technicality that occurred in March in court that allowed environmental review essentially to go through. Could you explain what that technicality was and why that would allow the process to continue?
[00:10:23] Speaker I: Yeah. So back in 2010, we filed the first lawsuit against this project, and we won several rounds. The court, a federal court in the Humboldt county court, ordered Caltrans to further analyze the possible impacts on the roots on the ancient redwoods from cutting into the route. And they never actually produced that analysis. What they did was they went back to the original judge in the state case and said was they didn't have to recirculate the environmental impact report, that they could just do an abbreviated internal look. There was never the opportunity to evaluate any kind of enhanced analysis that the lower court ordered. And so we filed a new suit and Basically, Caltrans and the court argued that we should have appealed the return on the writ rather than file the new suit. And it was a technicality that is really tragic because no court has ever evaluated the actual impacts of the project itself on the root system. It's been a series of procedural arguments that unfortunately we feel as if we've never gotten our day in court even after all these years.
[00:11:43] Speaker A: Miles Cochran, PIO for Caltrans in Humboldt and Del Norte, sent KMUD News the following response to the signature effort regarding the Richardson Grove Improvement Project. A professional arborist's analysis included a comprehensive review of relevant literature as well as an in person assessment of the trees. The latest court ruling was not based on a technicality. As noted in the court of appeals March 26 decision. In the 10 plus years since Caltrans revised its original redwood tree root analysis, not a single trial court judge has concluded the addendum's analysis is flawed. Most recently, the trial court that ruled in Caltrans favor leading to the March 26th appellate decision rejected all claims challenging the substance and merits of the Caltrans redwood tree study. The federal ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld the Caltrans tree root analysis in its 2020 decision where plaintiffs raised the same challenges that they had made in state court. California State Parks has also concurred with the Caltrans assessment through its 4F concurrence.
We will have to wait and see if Governor Newsom responds. Reporting for KMUD, I'm April Lewis.
Humboldt county is moving closer to the creation of a sheriff's Office oversight Committee, Daniel Mintz reports.
[00:13:07] Speaker F: Responding to public demand for creating a sheriff's oversight Committee, Humboldt County's Board of Supervisors will consider approval of an ordinance on it. At the April 28 board meeting, a majority of supervisors voted to have an ad hoc committee develop a draft ordinance that will be reviewed in September.
Last March, a group of residents asked that a ballot measure should creating a new Policing Oversight Board be discussed on a future agenda.
Supervisors were open to the idea but supported implementing it via ordinance rather than a ballot measure, which would have to be submitted to the county's election department by early August and if approved, could only be amended through another election.
County Sheriff Billy Hansel doesn't support either option.
[00:13:57] Speaker D: Being an elected official ensures that the office of the sheriff reflects the preferences and priorities of our local citizens. And I strive to uphold the public trust and interest before my own despite what is being alleged that there's some kind of mistrust, wholehearted mistrust with the Sheriff's office.
I disagree.
I believe that the trust this community has with the Sheriff's office is at an all time high and I ask each one of you to prove me wrong.
The Sheriff's office has independent means for oversight and review of critical incidents and allegations of serious misconduct involving its employees. This oversight comes from the Peace Officer Standards of Training post, the Board of State of Community Corrections, bscc, the Attorney General, the Department of justice, the District Attorney, the Board of Supervisors, Human Rights Commission, Grand Jury and the public.
[00:14:49] Speaker F: Most importantly, Hansel added, quote, I ask you, why fix something that's not broken? I've yet to hear the catalyst that this is necessary. There's no evidence to support that this current system is not working.
But during a lengthy public comment period, most of the people who spoke support an oversight committee.
An Arcata resident who identified herself as Amanda said a committee is indeed necessary and she gave several reasons why.
[00:15:17] Speaker J: I do not trust the sheriffs. The public does not trust the sheriff. I have seen countless abuses of power, including the inhumane war against the poor and displacement of harassment against the homeless and seizement of their property. Not to mention the excess of force seen by the response to the peaceful protest of the Cal Poly on countless other cases.
The defense of that there has been no contact from the public and signature drive is limited because of the time and money and resources of the volunteers. We are coming forward right now. If the sheriff says, I support the voices of the people and the supervisors say, and I agree, that most people will support this, then they have nothing to hide high and they should encourage this to increase public trust and accountability.
[00:16:14] Speaker F: Other speakers said a committee will enhance the democratic process and will ensure the transparency and integrity of policing into the future.
A majority of supervisors also supported oversight. Supervisor Natalie Arroyo described it as, quote, an opportunity for people to learn and discuss policing procedures.
Supervisor Steve Madrone agreed with public speakers who said, if Hansel vouches for public engagement, an oversight committee will provide it.
[00:16:43] Speaker K: I think the things that resonate with me a lot is if you do want all this transparency, why not do this? The budget is an issue, there's no doubt about it.
From the research I've done. Communities, it seems, have actually saved money from liabilities and lawsuits that more than covered the cost of doing an oversight committee.
And frankly, I would love that because then we could put that into wages which are so desperately needed, and we could find a way to save money and put that into something like that. Not only would trust be growing and morale, but having better wages would go a Long way as well.
[00:17:21] Speaker F: But supervisor Rex Bone advised against civilian oversight, saying, quote, this is so unneeded. We're not. Minneapolis supervisors voted 4 to 1, with Bone dissenting to have an ordinance drafted for review this fall.
The board will consider creating both an oversight committee and a new layer of bureaucracy, the Office of the Inspector General, to coordinate oversight as recommended in the 2024 Grand Jury Report in Eureka. For KMUD news, this is Daniel Mintz.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: In Fortuna. It is estimated that there is only one physician for every 1,200 residents. We spoke with Redwoods Rule CEO Seth Whitmer, whose satellite clinic in Fortuna is now accepting new patients. So, yeah, just wanted to ask some questions for our listeners.
[00:18:17] Speaker H: Just how we got to the point where you can now accept new patients at the Fortuna Clinic and the services you'll be offering.
[00:18:25] Speaker E: How we got there was we have a super amazing team in Fortuna, and they have just done an excellent job. And we're like, hey, how do we continue to help the community in the best way, in the most efficient, effective way that we can?
And we figured out that we can.
We could. We could fit a couple of more providers in the. In the tiny space there. And so the team was just amazing about working together and coming up with solutions. And we were able to recruit two additional medical providers that came in. And.
And so that made it possible for us to be like, hey, we have more ability to take on more patients here now in Fortuna.
[00:19:22] Speaker A: And what do you think the main
[00:19:24] Speaker H: factors are behind the doctor to patient ratio being one to a little bit over 1200? How did we get to this point?
[00:19:32] Speaker A: And has that traditionally been where Fortuna
[00:19:35] Speaker H: is at in terms of healthcare access, or does that mark kind of reduction in the number of total doctors?
[00:19:40] Speaker E: You know, I can't really speak to the history industry. I've. I've only been here for a couple of years. You know, I can tell you what I kind of understand about the past is that. That it. It has generally been a challenge in the past to recruit more providers. Honestly, in comparison, to try to re. Trying to recruit providers for Redway, Fortuna is really easy.
And so for us, it was like, well, hey, how do we, you know, get more providers? Well, if we can put some more in Fortuna, that's a whole lot easier than trying to try and put them in Redway. We were able to be successful in making that happen. One of them, one of the new providers we just hired, he actually lives in Fortuna already.
He had been going other places to work Bizarrely.
And then he was like, hey, you know, I kind of want to work here, and I'm trying to find a good organization to work for. And he just walked in, and we were just so excited about him. And I think that the.
The challenge overall is trying to get over the.
Maybe the stigmas about being here and helping people to realize what an amazing place it is and being willing to also invest in providers. It's often easier to hire providers who are right out of school.
And the challenge with that is that you have to take time to invest in them, in training them and teaching them, and then not. You know, nationally, the average is that 50% of new providers right out of school will change their job within the first two years. And that's a terrible number. Right. We try to make a.
At Redwoods rural. We're trying to make a good work environment where people will want to stay. So, I mean, as far as the rest of the community, though, about how we got here, I think it's been like this for a very long time, is my understanding.
And, And. And just from what I've seen in recruitment efforts, oftentimes it's just trying to find the right person with the. The right desire to live in an area that doesn't have, you know, the. The urban feel of all the shopping and at. Access to all of the things you might find in a more urban center like Sacramento or San Francisco.
So I think it's a matter of trying to find the right fit and also trying to find the people that we can kind of accommodate to meet their needs.
And maybe they want to just work here, but not live here, too. I mean, that's. So can we accommodate that? How do we work around that?
[00:22:29] Speaker A: In your press release, you offered.
[00:22:31] Speaker H: You discussed additional medical services that are offered at the Redway location. How easy would it be someone who's a new patient and accesses through the Fortuna satellite location to use some of the additional services down in Redway?
[00:22:44] Speaker E: Very easy. Yeah, it's a very easy, seamless process that.
I mean, if people are trying to access dental or behavioral health or, you know, acupuncture or any of our other services, you know, unfortunately, it is a little bit of a drive, but we try to do everything we can to make that process very easy to get them in.
[00:23:15] Speaker A: Reporting for kmud, I'm April Lewis.
Last tonight we have a story courtesy of our friends at kpfa. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could decide the fate of thousands of lawsuits claiming a popular pesticide causes cancer, Cade Young reports.
[00:23:39] Speaker G: The Supreme Court justices heard arguments Tuesday over whether it should block thousands of lawsuits claiming Monsanto's pesticide roundup causes cancer.
The case turns on issues related to product labeling and whether federal or state standards prevail.
Monsanto's lawyer, Paul Clement, and US Solicitor General Harris argued that states should not be allowed to overrule federal labeling approvals. They argued that manufacturers can't be accountable for states and state juries retroactively viewing approved EPA labels as insufficient or obsolete.
[00:24:11] Speaker D: And there's really no way to look at this case and not come to the conclusion that a Missouri jury has told us that a cancer warning that EPA hasn't required us to put on the label and is required to put on that label.
[00:24:23] Speaker G: The US Joined the case as a friend of the court supporting Monsanto's position. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the system cannot support individual states providing their own rulings on chemical labels.
[00:24:36] Speaker A: EPA is getting in new information. EPA is the one with suspension power. If you had 50 different states that are just like jumping the gun, Iowa says maybe this causes cancer. California says absolutely causes cancer. Some other state says this doesn't cause cancer at all. So put that on your label too. It completely undermines the uniformity of the labeling.
[00:24:55] Speaker G: Darnell's lawyer, Ashley Keller, argued that Monsanto is changing the topic of the case following its loss at the hands of a Missouri jury.
He says that Darnell's case isn't about labeling, but about breach of duty. He also argues that if Monsanto wants to restrict state's efforts to influence labeling and protections, they can do so through the US Congress.
[00:25:16] Speaker L: So the law of the United States and the law of Missouri could be the same. One jury could say Monsanto didn't do it. There's nothing wrong with this pesticide. Glyphosate is totally safe. There's no breach of duty. That's not a preemption question. That's a question of breach of duty. And a different jury could come out the way Mr. Durnel's jury did. Congress could of course, write a different express preemption clause. Monsanto is lobbying literally right now for Congress to do that. And if they are successful through the bicameralism and presentment process, we would begrudgingly concede.
[00:25:45] Speaker G: Keller's comments on Monsanto's lobbying efforts come as the Trump administration faces intense scrutiny over its partnership with Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto. This scrutiny comes from both the Democrats and a segment of Trump's own supporters outside the supreme court Make America Healthy Again Protesters gathered to make their voices heard. Author and activist Vanny Hari spoke out against Bayer and its efforts to influence federal law.
[00:26:10] Speaker M: Write to your representative and you tell them to vote down the provisions in the Farm Bill that give Bayer and
[00:26:18] Speaker A: other pesticide corporations immunity from liability.
[00:26:22] Speaker G: On the Democratic side, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez questioned EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin during a hearing on Capitol Hill Tuesday over a meeting Zeldin held with Bayer. According to internal EPA emails, the two sides plan to discuss pending legal actions against the company. Ocasio Cortez expressed concern that this meeting and subsequent actions taken by the EPA might have direct influence on the Supreme Court case and the Farm Bill currently undergoing debate in Congress.
[00:26:52] Speaker M: So we have internal emails from your agency saying that Bayer wanted to thank you and your agency for removing support for California's warning because their case before the Supreme Court right now hinges on you not warning the American people and withdrawing your support on glyphosate. Do you understand the conflict of interest that is before the American people right now?
[00:27:19] Speaker G: Mr. Secretary Selden denied discussing any legal issues with Bayer during their meeting.
This all follows an executive order signed by President Trump which prioritizes an increased domestic production of glyphosate. The administration claims the executive order is critical for military readiness and national defense, as elemental phosphorus, which is used to make glyphosate, is a critical ingredient for military munitions.
The court's decision on Monsanto v. Durnel could have long lasting ramifications on individuals rights to sue chemical manufacturers like Bayer. The Supreme Court is likely to hand down its ruling by the end of June.
For kpfa, I'm Cade Young.
[00:28:00] Speaker A: That's all for our news broadcast. Thanks for listening. Thanks to our rotation of broadcast engineers Michael McCaskill, Dennis Marr, Katie Phillips, Bianna Frederico, Larry Lashley and Javier Rodriguez. Also thanks to our reporter Daniel Mintz and our Assistant Director Gabriel Zucker. KMUD News is online. You can find us on kmud.org and now streaming on podcast platforms including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
You can download our stories and newscasts for offline listening. You can also follow us on social media amunews, including Facebook and Instagram.
Do you have issues important to you that deserve more attention?
Are there stories we're missing or that you're curious about? You can give us a call at 707-923-2605 or send an email to newsema.org Redwood Community Radio is funded by Press Forward, the National Movement to Strengthen Communities by reinvigorating local news. Learn more at PressForward News.
Redwood Community Radio acknowledges that its transmitter sites are located in the unceded territory of the Sikyon, Wailaki, Wiat, Wilka and Kato people. We honor ancestors past, present and emerging, and acknowledge the unique, ongoing, cultural, spiritual and physical connection that these tribes have to the region.
Reporting for kmud, I'm April Lewis. Stay tuned. In.
