County

IMPERIAL — Whenever the weather changes suddenly, or the skyline becomes shrouded in a windy haze, Fernanda Camarillo braces herself for an asthma attack.

Her condition has become more manageable, but the 27-year-old said it’s still scary when her chest tightens and she starts to wheeze. It was one of her first thoughts when she heard about plans to develop a massive data center next to her home in Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico that struggles with poor air quality.

“A lot of people in the county are asthmatic,” she said, explaining that she worries the new center would add more pollution. “I’ve been anxious — so many of us are voicing our concerns.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly changing and expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence, or AI as it’s known. States and communities nationwide have started pushing back, citing concerns that the projects could strain power grids, increase utility bills and have negative health and environmental impacts.

In California, state legislators are debating how to protect residents and natural resources without creating so much red tape that developers go elsewhere, taking their jobs and taxable earnings with them.

No Data Center signs are posted in the front yard of a home that is right behind the proposed site.

“We can be supportive of innovation and a technology that is needed but also protect our communities and our health and our environment,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). “We can do both at the same time.”

The California Legislature is considering bills to prohibit the projects from being exempted from the state’s stringent environmental law and to impose new tariffs on new major energy users that strain power supplies. Lawmakers also have proposed restrictions on new data centers, requiring companies to provide verifiable estimates on expected water and energy usage before they can be granted a business permit.

Imperial resident Fernanda Camarillo, who is an asthmatic, holds some of her medications.

Members of Congress also expressed concerns. Rep. Ro Khanna, speaking at a town hall about AI last month at Stanford University, said legislators must ensure data centers serve the communities that power them.

“We live in a new gilded age,” said Khanna (D-Fremont). “What kind of future are we going to build?”

::

Eric Masanet, a professor at UC Santa Barbara specializing in sustainability science for emerging technologies, described the facilities as the “brains” of the internet. The sprawling centers are filled with banks of specialized computers that process online shopping orders, stream movies, host websites, encode Zoom and other videoconferencing apps, store data and serve as switching stations for the digital world that’s now woven into daily life.

Data centers, particularly those that power AI, use significant amounts of water and energy. The facilities accounted for about 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity consumption in 2023, up from 1.9% in 2018, according to a report provided to Congress from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers projected that figure will reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028.

Many companies, including big tech giants like Meta, Google and Amazon, are making major investments in AI.

“We are building a lot more data centers faster than we ever did — and a new AI data center is 10 to 20, maybe 30 times, the size of the largest data centers we had before,” Masanet said.

The proposed site of the 950,00-square-foot data center is on a dusty parcel that is next to the Victoria Ranch housing community and adjacent to farmland in Imperial, Calif.

It’s unclear how many data centers are in the state. A California Energy Commission spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times it does not track this information. Data Center Map, a nongovernmental website that tracks data centers across the world, lists 289 facilities in California, with more than 4,000 nationwide.

The federal government has, so far, largely left it to states or localities to regulate data centers.

The facilities can generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes.

But some new proposals are sparking a backlash. More than 200 community and environmental organizations, including a dozen from California, sent an open letter to Congress in December calling for a national moratorium on new data centers.

Robert Gould, a pathologist with San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the organizations that signed the letter, explained data centers are causing a shift away from renewable energy and back toward fossil fuels because the facilities need a reliable and constant stream of power.

Cornell University researchers last year estimated that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030, unless steps are taken to change course.

Gould said fossil fuel emissions are associated with various cancers, an increase in hospitalizations for older adults due to respiratory conditions, and asthma attacks or stunted lung growth in children. Particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions is also linked to cardiovascular events and negative effects on maternal fetal health.

Gould’s organization has noticed an alarming trend.

“These are generally placed in communities that are the least able to defend themselves,” he said.

Farmworkers toil in the noon heat to pick vegetables in Imperial. Agriculture is an important part of the Imperial Valley economy.

::

The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California where a proposed center faces fierce opposition from residents.

The county in 2025 granted the project an exemption for the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. The landmark 56-year-old state law has been credited with helping to preserve California’s natural beauty and protecting communities from hazardous impacts of construction projects — but also blamed for stymieing construction.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, a California-based limited liability company that started two years ago, plans to develop a 950,000-square-foot facility in the county that’s designed for advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning operations. The company says it will use reclaimed wastewater and EPA-certified natural gas generators, and create 2,500 to 3,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent positions.

“We are committed to Imperial County and to creating lasting economic opportunity,” the company website states. “The project will generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue for local schools, fire departments, libraries, and essential services.”

The Imperial County Board of Supervisors is moving toward finalizing the proposal.

Farmland spreads out in front of the Imperial Valley Fair near a proposed data center in Imperial.

Sebastian Rucci, an attorney and chief executive officer of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, said he commissioned multiple studies assessing the proposed center’s potential effect on issues like traffic or the environment that found no or minimal harms. He threatened to pull his proposal if a CEQA review was required.

“CEQA leaves you in an unknown territory — some of the environmental groups have used it for extortion, they sue, they have no basis for the suit but they delay you, and then they can squeeze money out of you for settling the lawsuit,” said Rucci.

The exemption, however, has alarmed residents, who have spoken up at county board meetings and launched a community organization, Not in My Backyard Imperial, to protest the data center and demand a CEQA review.

“It feels like it’s us against the county,” said Camarillo, adding that many feel the board has dismissed their questions and concerns.

None of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors responded to requests for comment.

Resident Fernanda Camarillo’s home is right behind the proposed site of the data center in Imperial.

The center would be a neighbor to Camarillo’s house in Victoria Ranch, a family-friendly area with beige stucco homes topped with terracotta tile roofs. She worries about noise, pollution and spiking utility bills. Power companies that have to upgrade grids to meet data centers’ energy demands sometimes seek to recoup that cost by hiking up rates for all consumers.

Camarillo, a substitute teacher, is also scared for her students. The air quality in Imperial Valley is already so poor that schools use a system of color-coded flags to signal whether it’s safe for children to go outside during gym or recess, she said.

“I think they see [the valley] as easy pickings because we are a low-income community and we have such a large population of Latinos here,” Camarillo said.

A quick drive around the neighborhood shows others share her concerns. Signs protesting the data center pop up throughout the community, displayed on front lawns or nestled into rocky garden beds.

Victoria Ranch was quiet and peaceful on a sunny Sunday in late February. Francisco Leal, a resident and lead organizer for NIMBY Imperial, said that’s a major part of its appeal.

The colorful dusk sky hovers over a Little League baseball game at Freddie White Park in Imperial. The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California.

Leal wants answers about everything from potential health hazards and impacts on the local water supply to whether the fire department is equipped to handle a large-scale electrical blaze. But without a CEQA review, he says residents are left to trust assurances from the developer or privately hired consultants.

Leal plans to sell his property if the project goes forward, but the thought makes him emotional.

“It’s not just a house; it’s a home,” he said. “This is the only home my kids have ever known and all of our family memories are here.”

Gina Snow, another resident, isn’t necessarily against bringing a data center to the county. But she wants the proposal to undergo a CEQA review.

“Clearly we understand that there is economic development and the potential for that to be positive for the county, but at what cost?” she said.

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, stands on the site of the proposed data center.

::

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, said the community has good reason to be wary. Various industries have come into the region over the years and made grand promises that never panned out.

“We became a sacrifice zone,” she said, adding industries use the area’s resources while ultimately doing little to permanently improve the lives of most residents.

Flores said the community continues to struggle with a range of problems, including poor air quality, high poverty rates, weak worker protections and crumbling infrastructure. She believes a data center could add new and potentially dangerous challenges.

The valley has long, brutal summers with temperatures that swell to 120 degrees. If the data center strains the grid and causes a lengthy blackout, or low-income residents have their power shut off because they can’t afford the rising bills, Flores fears the situation could quickly turn deadly.

The city of Imperial also has concerns. The city has filed a lawsuit calling on the county to halt the project, arguing it should not have received a CEQA exemption.

The controversy has drawn attention from Padilla, whose district includes Imperial Valley. Padilla has echoed residents’ calls for more transparency from the county and introduced Senate Bill 887, which would ban data centers from receiving exemptions from CEQA.

“I am not anti-data center or anti-artificial intelligence,” Padilla said. But, he added, we need to “find a way to do this right and make sure there is adequate review and understanding.”

A dusty haze settles over the city of Imperial at dusk near the site of a proposed data center.

Another measure from Padilla, Senate Bill 886, would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create an electrical corporation tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades.

Other related legislation this year includes Assembly Bill 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would require data center owners to provide an estimate about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license, and Assembly Bill 1577, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption and energy efficiency.

While lawmakers weigh new policies at the statehouse, Camarillo said she hopes the priority will be protecting communities.

“Innovation is important, but innovation for the sake of innovation has never really been something that hasn’t had negative impacts,” she said. “Think about human lives.”

SACRAMENTO — Every two years, elite athletes compete in the Olympics, biennial plants — like carrots and onions — produce seeds and people across America look on with consternation and mounting impatience as California counts its election ballots.

The prolonged tally has become as much a part of electioneering in the Golden State as wall-to-wall advertising, high-flown promises and overstuffed mailboxes groaning beneath the weight of endless campaign fliers.

The tabulation — which can last weeks past election day — is the product, in large part, of a commendable objective: Encouraging as many people as possible to vote.

California, which mails a ballot to every eligible voter, ranks near the top of states in the ease of its elections. That’s something to be celebrated. Voting is a way to help steer the direction of our state and nation and invest, as an active participant, in its future.

Yay, participatory democracy!

Unfortunately, the lag time between election day and the final results has led to all sorts of wild, unfounded claims, peddled mainly by Republicans seeking to curry favor with the sore-losing President Trump by parroting his conspiratorial gabbling.

“They hold the elections open for weeks after election day,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said recently, falsely suggesting that chicanery cost the GOP three House seats in California in 2024. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent.”

That’s a lot of, um, hooey.

There is no rampant cheating or election fraud in California. Period. Full stop.

Still, those sorts of phony statements have deeply diminished faith in our elections and our increasingly rickety democracy.

So — what if it were possible to preserve California’s friendly voting system while, at the same time, speeding up the tabulation of its many millions of ballots?

Kim Alexander believes it’s possible to do both.

“We need to stop explaining why it’s taking so long and start figuring out how to [produce election results] in a more satisfying way,” she said. “There are a lot of things that we could do better and do differently. It just takes some creative thinking and some will.”

Simply put, “The longer it takes to count ballots, the more voter confidence erodes.”

Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, has spent more than three decades working to make the state’s elections more efficient, more transparent and more accountable.

Her interest in politics and election mechanics came about while growing up in Culver City, where her father served as a councilman and mayor.

As a 7-year-old, stationed in the garage, it was Alexander’s job to track the returns in her dad’s first campaign, toting up the numbers at an election night party while her mom, posted in the kitchen, called the city clerk for updates. Even at that young age, Alexander learned the importance of a fair and efficient tabulation process.

Over the years, she watched as her father’s political career was stymied by a Democratic gerrymander, which blocked any hopes he had of being elected to Congress or the Legislature as a moderate Republican. She saw firsthand the influence of money in politics. (Her father told her of turning away donations that came with strings attached.) That helped turn her into a political reformer.

After working as a legislative staffer and serving a stint at Common Cause, the good-government lobbying group, Alexander took over the California Voter Foundation in 1994.

As a political noncombatant, Alexander won’t say how it feels, and whether these days she’s more or less optimistic, watching as reckless attacks on our elections come from inside the White House. “I like to describe myself as a realist with high goals,” is all she’d allow.

There are good reasons why it takes California so long to count its ballots.

First off, there are a lot of them; more than 16 million residents voted in the last presidential election, more than the population of all but 10 states. Voting by mail has exploded in popularity and it takes longer to count those ballots, as many don’t arrive until after election day. Also, there are a number of safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure an accurate count. “We’re checking all the signatures,” Alexander said. “We’re making sure nobody votes twice.”

Simply explaining those facts can help build trust, she said. However, that won’t speed up the state’s vote counting. Here, Alexander suggested, are some things that can:

— Increase funding for California’s 58 counties to expand equipment, staff and the space needed to process ballots. In recent years, the state has been asking local election officials to do more and more without reimbursing their costs.

— Educate voters and encourage them to turn their ballots in earlier. Along those lines, a system called “sign, scan and go” allows voters to return their mail ballots in person at a designated polling place. A pilot program in Placer County found that that shaved three to four days off processing time. The system could be implemented statewide.

— Better manage California’s voter database, doing so from the top down in Sacramento, rather than having counties oversee their data and feed it into the system. That bottom-up approach creates delays and a lag time in processing ballots.

— Create “ballot swap” days to speed delivery of out-of-county ballots where they belong, also saving time. (Under California law, voters can return their ballot anywhere in the state, but it must be routed to their home county to be tabulated. That process can now take more than a week.)

The problem, apart from perennial budget pressures, is that interest in election mechanics — a technical and arcane subject if ever there was one — is episodic and fleeting. It’s like worrying about a leaky roof when the temperature is 95 degrees outside and the sun is blazing.

But even without voters clamoring to address California’s slow-poke vote count, lawmakers should act.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently rose to defend the state’s “safe and secure elections” against one of Trump’s many unwarranted attacks. If he wants to burnish his credentials for a 2028 presidential run — which Newsom very much does — one way would be to speed up delivery of its election results.

That way the rest of the country won’t be asking again in November: What the heck’s with California?

Los Angeles County’s chief executive officer Fesia Davenport, who has been on medical leave since October, has announced that she will resign next month.

In a LinkedIn post, Davenport said she was leaving county service to “focus on my health and wellness.”

A notice to the Board of Supervisors provided to The Times Saturday said she had decided to step down April 16 “based primarily on hereditary and ongoing health issues initially uncovered late last year, the risks of which have become clearer based on more recent medical testing and consultation with my doctors.”

She said the “extraordinary amount of time and energy” required of the chief executive played into her decision.

“Although I originally assumed that I would be able to return to my post, I now know that I would be unable to do the job as it deserves to be done while also prioritizing my health,” she told the supervisors.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger issued a statement Saturday saying, “I’m disappointed by Fesia Davenport’s decision to step down. Her dedication and accomplishments over nearly three decades have left a lasting impact on Los Angeles County.”

Davenport, who was appointed to the county’s top job in 2021, received an undisclosed $2-million settlement last summer to compensate for damage to her “professional reputation” from Measure G, a voter-approved ballot measure that will soon eliminate her position.

In a July 8 letter, released by the county counsel in October through a public record request, Davenport said she sought $2 million in damages for “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress caused by the Measure G.”

Under Measure G, which voters approved in 2024, the county chief executive, who manages the county government and oversees its budget, will be elected by voters instead of appointed by the board. The elected county executive will be in place by 2028.

Measure G “has had, and will continue to have, an unprecedented impact on my professional reputation, health, career, income, and retirement,” Davenport wrote to county counsel Dawyn Harrison. She said it had “irrevocably changed my life, my professional career, economic outlook, and plans for the future.”

At the time the payout was disclosed, Davenport had begun a medical leave, saying at the time she expected to be back to work early this year.

A lengthy email to her staff, posted on LAist, which first disclosed her resignation, said the unspecified “health crisis” has affected three of her siblings and posed risks to her that “have become clearer based on more recent medical testing and consultation with my doctors.”

Her brother Raymond died in 2018 after “experiencing a sudden health crisis,” she said. Last year, two more of her sisters survived the same health crisis, but one will now require 24-hour care for the rest of her life, she said.

“Although I am not out of the woods yet, I am thankful to the Board for granting me the space to focus on my health and to arm myself with the knowledge I needed to make informed decisions,” she wrote.

The office of chief executive issued a statement Saturday saying chief operating officer Joe Nicchitta will continue serving as acting chief executive officer while Davenport remains on medical leave.

“We appreciate Fesia’s nearly three decades of service to Los Angeles County and all that she has accomplished on behalf of its residents and communities,” the statement said.

Davenport listed a number of accomplishments in her letter to the board, including setting up five new departments maintaining the county’s credit rating when other jurisdictions were being downgraded and “balancing the budget while developing a financing plan to compensate sexual assault victims — the largest settlement of its kind in American history.”

That payout has now come under scrutiny after a Times investigation found that some plaintiffs had been paid to join the class-action lawsuit.

A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.

Eric Batman, a 24-year veteran of the Department of Public Works, sued the county March 10 for refusing to let him work remotely in June, when the rainbow-striped flag hangs in front of his department’s Alhambra headquarters.

It’s the second lawsuit to target the county’s 2023 policy ordering the raising of the “Progress Pride Flag,” a modified version of the traditional rainbow flag with additional stripes representing people of color and transgender and nonbinary people.

In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.

Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.

A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.

“They wouldn’t give it to him because the county said ‘Our interest is in inclusivity — regardless of whether or not that includes you,”’ said Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group representing Batman.

Liberty Counsel frequently takes on high-profile plaintiffs who oppose same-sex marriage, including the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A spokesperson for the county’s public works department said she could not comment on the suit as it had not yet been served.