Coronado beach closure lifted by county health officials
Above: KUSI report on Sen. Corey Booker touring the Tijuana River on Thursday, May 29.
CORONADO, Calif. (FOX 5/KUSI) — County health officials have lifted the closure of Coronado's shoreline that was put in place over Memorial Day weekend.
The ending of the closure was accompanied by the issuance of advisories for La Playa Beach near Lawrence Street in Point Loma and the water near the Coronado Lifeguard Headquarters due to bacteria levels that exceed state health standards.
The entire western shoreline of Coronado — from Avenida Lunar in the south to North Beach in the north — was first closed on Saturday due to the flow of sewage from the Tijuana River Valley.
The closure came on the heels of a period with worse-than-normal conditions for South County residents amid work to the sewage treatment system on the other side of the border.
Sen. Cory Booker tours Tijuana River sewage crisis
The repairs earlier this month to a critical line connecting the San Antonio de los Buenos Plant in Mexico to the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in the U.S. required the diversion of wastewater into the Tijuana River.
When the repairs began, Mexican and U.S. officials noted the South Bay treatment plant would try to collect as much of the extra wastewater as possible, but it could lead to temporarily increased sewage flows.
The work was completed last week and concluded with minimal sewage flows crossing the border, according to a post on X by the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission, which oversees the South Bay treatment plant.
With the lifting of the Coronado shoreline closure, the county's ongoing beach management actions have returned to what has become normal in recent years: closures limited to perennial problem spots close to the Tijuana River estuary, like Silver Strand and Imperial Beach.
As of Wednesday, advisories due to levels of bacteria exceeding state standards are also in place for other area that regularly see health warnings like La Jolla Children's Pool, North Cove Vacation Isle in Mission Bay and the La Jolla Cove.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reader Q&A: What's up with Arizona's special gasoline blends and are they worth the cost?
This is part of a monthly series answering readers' climate-related questions and highlighting Arizona's unsung climate leaders. The stories aim to help connect and inspire Arizonans who care about protecting a livable climate and may be struggling to find hope in that effort. You can ask a question or nominate an unsung Arizona climate leader by filling out this form at or by emailing climate reporter Joan Meiners at The price of gasoline is a frequent hot topic of conversation around the water cooler, er, gas pump. It also comes up like clockwork every four years during the run-up to the presidential election when it is, incorrectly, used to blame or praise candidates for their economic approach (turns out gasoline prices have very little to do with short-term domestic policies and are largely out of any sitting president's control, according to energy analysts). In Arizona, gasoline tends to be a bit more expensive than the national average, as my colleague Russ Wiles reported recently in advance of Memorial Day weekend travel. One reason could be that a state law requires the summertime use of a special blend designed to help control ozone and other air pollutants that peak during hot months in metro Phoenix, which consistently ranks among the regions with the worst air quality in the country. After Wiles' story was published, he received questions from readers about whether that requirement is still in place and, if so, whether it's worth the added cost. More: What to expect with Arizona gas prices as Memorial Day, summer travel season nears "Russ, unfortunately, you didn't mention the exotic blend of gasoline only Arizona is required to use to supposedly lower the ozone levels, which costs tons more than similar blends that could supposedly have the same effect on pollution and are cheaper," one reader wrote. "You didn't mention the special blend that is required by the consent order locally signed," another reader pointed out. "Is it no longer in effect?" Arizona's cleaner-burning gasoline blend was not the focus of Wiles' story last month. But since burning fossil fuels like gasoline for transportation is a top contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases causing the climate to warm and destabilize, and because ozone is an indirect part of that larger equation, it is the focus of this story — part of our monthly series answering reader's climate-related questions or highlighting a local climate leader. (Submit your question here: AZ climate leader: These 'great old broads' are serious about science, wolves and reversing climate change The most basic difference with cleaner-burning gasoline is the addition of oxygen-containing compounds, or oxygenates, that help gasoline burn more completely in fuel tanks and not evaporate from vehicles. This makes for better fuel efficiency (with some minor mpg tradeoffs) while minimizing toxins that end up in the air. CBG blends also reduce the amount of benzene, a known human carcinogen, by half and the amount of sulfur, which facilitates better emissions controls on vehicles, by up to 80%. And they typically cut back on the use of other smog-forming hydrocarbons once thought to improve vehicle performance. Extensive testing with millions of miles driven on CBG blends since 1996, however, has shown no negative effects on vehicles or in other types of gasoline-burning engines. The fuel types can be used interchangeably without any modifications. The estimated effect is a 15% reduction in smog for a 5- to 15-cent per gallon cost increase. (These stats are for California, which has a slightly different blend. Arizona officials declined to comment for The Arizona Republic on how the local CBG blend differs or might affect prices.) It's tough to translate that added cost at the pump into health care savings related to air pollution's links to higher incidences of asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke and more. But since children can be especially vulnerable to air pollutants, the value of reducing them now can pay dividends for society further into the future, with incoming generations that are able to be more productive in the workforce and less reliant on the health care system. More: Reader Q&A: How can I protect my kids from climate pollution and advocate for clean air? Jeremy Martin, a chemist who directs fuels policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Transportation Program, said it's important to look at vehicles and fuels as an interconnected system shifting with gasoline markets and vehicle efficiency improvements, and also with societal health outcomes and concerns. "One important piece of context is that federal fuel regulations have been changing as well," Martin said. "Vehicle regulations and fuel regulations go hand in hand, and together they result in reduced air pollution and reduced health impacts from that pollution." The American Lung Association reported in 2025 that Arizona ranked fourth in the number of unhealthy ozone days and that 84% of Arizonans live in communities with unhealthy air. Another AZ climate leader: Rhonda Bannard believes women are the changemakers for climate action and Mother Earth Arizona's struggle with unhealthy air goes back decades, and so does its history of trying to contain it using cleaner-burning gasoline, one of several tools in the air quality arsenal. It all started in 1997, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency extended its reformulated gasoline program to the Phoenix area to bring it into compliance with air quality regulations established by the Clean Air Act. Then-Gov. Fife Symington supported this solution and asked in January 1997 that the EPA require refiners to supply local retailers with the reformulated gasoline blend by June. But in September of that year, Symington resigned from office over bank fraud convictions that were eventually overturned. His successor, Gov. Jane Dee Hull, requested an exemption from the EPA program just one week later. Although Phoenix was still considered a "serious ozone non-attainment area," the EPA granted this removal as of June 1998, one year after it had started, because Arizona had developed its own clean fuel program to reduce emissions of particulates and volatile organic compounds that contribute to ozone formation. The specifics of that state program have shifted and been revised over the years, with some efforts to increase its benefits for air quality and other introduced legislation, including in the current legislative session, aimed at expanding what types of fuel can be considered clean enough or loosening regulations. Vince Wolpert, who manages CBG compliance for the Arizona Department of Agriculture, said the current supply is sourced from refineries in California, New Mexico and Texas and brought into the state primarily by two pipelines, one from California and the other from New Mexico. "As for how the Department of Agriculture became involved, the Office of Weights and Measures already regulated fuel quality and quantity," Wolpert said. "Therefore, the state legislature tasked our agency as the enforcement agency for the CBG program." Read our climate series: The latest from Joan Meiners at azcentral: climate coverage from Arizona and the Southwest Beyond the cost-saving benefits of slowing destructive atmospheric warming by reducing tailpipe emissions that increase greenhouse gas concentrations and worsen storms, the climate issue becomes involved in gasoline pricing when demand for CBG intersects with Arizona's growing electric vehicle industry. "Of course, our best bet would be to invest more in transit and electric vehicles to make a difference for our air," said Sandy Bahr, director of the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club. Since 2022, Arizona has become an "EV battery manufacturing powerhouse," with several large new facilities incentivized by clean energy tax credits tied to former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Hundreds of millions of investment dollars and thousands of jobs have flowed to the state as a result. But the Trump administration's budget proposal currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate would repeal most of those funds, as well as a program offering average Americans up to $7,500 back on electric vehicle purchases. Advocates say this would devastate Arizona's clean energy economy and have hazardous consequences for energy access, air quality and health. Some analysts further predict that a slowing of the American electric vehicle industry — one that forces more people into internal combustion vehicles despite globally increasing market demand for EVs — could put more pressure on gasoline supply chains, causing a greater increase in prices at the pump than any version of a cleaner-burning fuel program. Joan Meiners is the climate news and storytelling reporter at The Arizona Republic and Her award-winning work has also appeared in Discover Magazine, National Geographic, ProPublica and the Washington Post Magazine. Before becoming a journalist, she completed a doctorate in ecology. Follow Joan on Twitter at @beecycles, on Bluesky @ or email her at This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Do Arizona's fuel blends help air quality or reduce greenhouses gases?
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
MAGA Melts Down Over Cory Booker's ‘Nazi' Salute
These days, raising your arm is dangerous territory. In a demonstration of what not to do, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker made an awkward right-arm gesture as he left the stage after speaking at the California Democratic Convention on Saturday. In a clip that lit up social media, Booker places his hand over his heart, then throws an open palm to the crowd with his arm straight. The MAGA bandwagon was quick to jump on the clip, with commentators on X branding New Jersey's first Black Senator a 'straight up Nazi' and 'literally Hitler.' 'Cory Booker sending his heart out to everyone,' one user wrote, followed by facepalm and crying laughing emojis. It's the same line of defense used by Elon Musk, who drew international condemnation for a similar gesture performed at Trump's inauguration in January. Musk himself shared the clip of Booker to his 220 million followers on X, commenting with a raised eyebrow emoji. The world's richest man was still talking about his 'unfair' treatment for the move only a few weeks ago, telling CNBC: 'How many legacy media publications, talk shows, whatever, try to claim that I was a Nazi because of some random hand gesture at a rally where all I said was that my heart goes out to you.' Booker, a self-described 'progressive,' is famous for his recent record-breaking 25-hour filibuster, which he undertook to steal the title from Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, who had tried to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a speech that lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes. In Booker's marathon session, he spoke of a Trump-caused national 'crisis' and criticized Musk's 'bullying' political tactics. Booker's gesture, with arm moving forward and fingers splayed, differs slightly from Musk's—whose fingers were tight and arm moved upwards and diagonally—but clearly not enough to avoid controversy. On the other hand, allegations over Musk's fascist beliefs do not stem entirely from a single gesture. The billionaire has long supported far-right parties across the globe, meeting, praising, and amplifying conservatives in at least 18 countries, NBC reports. He even appeared via video at an AfD rally in Germany, telling voters to be 'proud' of their culture, to not let it be 'diluted' by multiculturalism, and that they should 'move beyond' past guilt. Whatever Booker intended by the gesture, MAGA are not letting this one go and are demanding similar ink be spilt comparing the senator to Hitler as was with Musk. In the future, it would probably be better if all public figures just avoided trying to express their hearts going out to others through physical, single-armed gestures—if only to avoid sparking exhausting online feuds such as these. The Daily Beast has reached out to Booker's office for comment.
