LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — A Clearlake Oaks woman died early Tuesday after she was involved in a vehicle collision with a semi truck.

The California Highway Patrol’s Clear Lake Area office did not release the name of the 76-year-old woman in its Tuesday afternoon report on the crash pending the notification of her next of kin.

The CHP’s report said its officers responded to reports of a traffic crash on state Route 53, south of state Route 20 near Clearlake Oaks, at approximately 6:26 a.m. Tuesday.

When they arrived, the CHP said its officers determined that the female driver from Clearlake Oaks was driving a 2000 Lexus RX3 southbound on state Route 53.

Also traveling southbound on state Route 53 was Javier Gomez Jimenez, 57, of Williams, driving a 2015 Peterbilt truck tractor, the CHP said.

For reasons that the CHP said are still undetermined, the woman made a U-turn from the southbound shoulder ahead of Gomez Jimenez, resulting in a broadside crash.

The woman died of her injuries at the scene, the CHP said.

Gomez Jimenez remained on scene and was uninjured. Both drivers were believed to be wearing their seat belts, according to the CHP report.

The CHP said it’s currently unknown if drug or alcohol impairment were factors in the crash.

Conditions at the time were dark and wet, the report said.

Resources from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Lake County Fire Protection District, Caltrans and Alvarez Towing responded to the scene and assisted the CHP with the investigation, the CHP said.

The CHP said traffic impact on state Route 53 was minimal following the incident.

On Monday, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-04) and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01) released a letter urging the Internal Revenue Service to take immediate actions to implement their bipartisan legislation providing critical tax relief for wildfire victims.

President Biden recently signed the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act into law.

The Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act supports the nearly 70,000 survivors who suffered significant losses during three major federally declared California fires in 2015, 2017 and 2018 who have received related settlement payments, as well as future recipients of other wildfire settlements related to federally declared fires.

Many California wildfire survivors have already been taxed on their settlement payments, with some even losing access to certain federal benefits as a result of their compensation wrongly being considered income.

The requests outlined by Thompson, Padilla, and LaMalfa are instrumental in delivering the full relief these wildfire survivors deserve.

“[M]any Californians that received compensation have already been taxed on these payments in previous calendar years. This has significantly and unfairly hindered their ability to rebuild after devastating loss,” wrote the lawmakers. “Now that President Biden has signed this bill into law, the IRS must take every action available to provide clarity and guide taxpayers through the changes to the tax treatment of such payments.”

“Californians who have suffered inconceivable losses as a result of utility-caused wildfires have waited too long for tax relief,” continued the lawmakers. “We appreciate your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you to ensure that wildfire survivors have access to their full settlements and federal benefits.”

Specifically, the lawmakers recommended that the IRS take the following urgent steps in implementing Section 3 of the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act:

• Prioritize the drafting and approval of FAQs: The lawmakers asked the IRS to quickly finalize relevant FAQs so that impacted taxpayers can begin applying for refunds.
• Make necessary technical changes to IRS’ systems: Sec. 3(e) of the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act extends the period of limitation for credit or refund claims allocable to the exclusion of settlement payments to one year after the date of enactment. To implement this, the IRS must make technical updates to process applications and issue approved refunds online.
• Maximize community outreach and education: The lawmakers requested the IRS provide targeted outreach and work with community partners to ensure that all eligible taxpayers are aware of these tax code changes.
• Ensure all federal benefits are restored: Many wildfire survivors who would have otherwise qualified for certain federal benefits were wrongfully denied because their income was artificially inflated from the settlement payments. The lawmakers urged the IRS to ensure taxpayers are also made whole on federal benefits, such as Affordable Care Act premium assistance and Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit payments.

The full text of the letter is below.


Dear Secretary Yellen and Commissioner Werfel:

As members of the California delegation representing wildfire survivors that have received settlement payments for losses suffered during the three major California fires in 2015, 2017, and 2018, we write to urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to take immediate action on implementing Section 3 of the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act. President Biden recently signed our legislation to exempt such compensation from gross income for income tax purposes.

As you know, our tax code fails to clarify that disaster settlement funds, which are already insufficient in covering the full cost of losses, are neither income nor asset. Unlike those impacted by the fires that ravaged southern Oregon and Maui, many Californians that received compensation have already been taxed on these payments in previous calendar years. This has significantly and unfairly hindered their ability to rebuild after devastating loss. Now that President Biden has signed this bill into law, the IRS must take every action available to provide clarity and guide taxpayers through the changes to the tax treatment of such payments. Specifically, we ask that you:

Prioritize the drafting and approval of FAQs: Our understanding is that the provisions in this bill are self-enacting and do not require Department of the Treasury or IRS rulemaking. In order for impacted taxpayers to begin the refund process as soon as possible and receive the funding necessary to finance continued recovery, we ask that the IRS expedite the development of relevant FAQs.

Make necessary technical changes to IRS’ systems: Sec. 3(e) extends the period of limitation for credit or refund claims allocable to the exclusion of settlement payments to one year after the date of enactment. The IRS should make the necessary technical changes to current systems to allow for the processing of applications and issuance of approved refunds online. This will be critical for allowing a seamless and quick return process to put money back in the hands of wildfire survivors.

Maximize community outreach and education: Successful implementation of this bill will require targeted outreach to impacted taxpayers so that all eligible individuals are made aware of these changes to the tax code. The IRS must utilize every available resource to train and work in collaboration with community partners to ensure that all eligible taxpayers are able to submit refund applications.

Ensure all federal benefits are restored: Those who would have otherwise qualified for certain federal benefits administered by the IRS were denied because their gross income was artificially inflated as a result of the settlement payments. The IRS should ensure that, in filing for credit or refund, taxpayers also receive retroactive federal benefits (e.g., Affordable Care Act premium assistance, Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit payments, etc.) from these taxable years. We also ask that IRS work with other federal agencies to ensure taxpayers can apply for any non-IRS administered benefits.

Californians who have suffered inconceivable losses as a result of utility-caused wildfires have waited too long for tax relief. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you to ensure that wildfire survivors have access to their full settlements and federal benefits.

 

Percentage of U.S. high school students using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) from 2011 to 2023: 2011, 1.5%; 2012, 2.8%; 2013, 4.5%; 2014, 13.4%; 2015, 16%; 2016, 11.3%; 2017, 11.7%; 2018, 20.8%; 2020, 19.6%; 2021, 11.3%; 2022, 14.1%; 2023, 10%.


More than 1.6 million U.S. middle and high school students reported vaping in 2023, and nearly 90% used flavored vapes. But America’s youth vaping epidemic may be no accident.

UC San Francisco Professor of Medicine Pamela Ling, MD, MPH, is the director of the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

The center studies tobacco, including industry marketing to understand how its tactics shape people’s health. Big tobacco owns many of the top vape manufacturers.

Ling explains why vapes are more addictive than ever before — and why regulating them is so tough.

How potent are vapes?

Almost a decade ago, the average vape cartridge had the nicotine content of about a pack of cigarettes or 20 cigarettes. These days, popular vapes can easily have the nicotine content of three cartons or 600 cigarettes.

To make it possible to inhale such strong concentrations of nicotine, vape maker Juul Labs added acids to its vapes in 2015 to make “nicotine salts.” The salts reduce adverse reactions like throat burning and coughing. Today, the most popular disposable vapes use that technology, so vapes are stronger than ever.

Is vaping safer than smoking cigarettes?

We don’t know for sure. I think we can feel pretty confident that vaping exposes you to fewer chemicals and toxins than smoking cigarettes.

Observational studies have found that for lung disease, the risk associated with vaping does seem to be reduced when compared to cigarettes. But for cardiovascular disease the risks were no different than smoking.

And we don’t have definitive data on whether vaping causes less lung cancer than cigarettes. We hope that it does, but it takes 10 to 20 years for someone to develop lung cancer, so it’s too soon to have this kind of data.

Why are so many people worried about vaping in kids and young adults?

In the U.S., rates of vaping are higher among youth than older adults. We’re concerned about adolescents or kids vaping in part because we know vapes deliver nicotine exceptionally efficiently. The earlier you are exposed to nicotine, the more likely you are to become addicted – and that’s true of all substances because your brain is still developing up until 25 years old.

Percentage of U.S. high school students using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes)Percentage of U.S. high school students using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) from 2011 to 2023. 2011, 1.5%. 2012, 2.8%. 2013, 4.5% 2014, 13.4%. 2015, 16%. 2016, 11.3%. 2017, 11.7%. 2018, 20.8%. 2020, 19.6%. 2021, 11.3%. 2022, 14.1%. 2023, 10%.

How does vaping affect young people’s health?

Teens who vape are 3 to 5 times more likely to start smoking cigarettes than their peers. They also have higher rates of asthma-like respiratory symptoms and report more mental health challenges.

You study how marketing shapes vaping in America. What makes vapes so attractive to kids and young adults?

For decades, cigarette ads were designed to appeal to targeted audiences like women, people of color and young people. Cigarette companies would sponsor concerts and sporting events so that young people would associate smoking with social life. Today, thanks to regulation, cigarette brands can’t sponsor those types of events. But because vapes are not cigarettes, they’ve been able to do sponsorships, giveaways and other kinds of really appealing advertising that’s no longer allowed for cigarettes.

And vapes, for a long time, have been marketed like pieces of technology to escape the negative connotations young people have towards traditional cigarettes.

Lastly, a lot of vapes are advertised on social media, where it’s very hard to regulate. Juul is a great example: That company deliberately sought out social media influencers to talk about their products and use them; the company gave away thousands of free Juuls at parties – they manufactured a trend.

Why are flavored vapes bad?

Vapes come in thousands of flavors, and some are really appealing, like bubble gum, crème brûlée, and chicken and waffles. Even if teens aren’t interested in nicotine, just curiosity about the flavors can be enough to entice them. Because vapes deliver nicotine efficiently, it doesn’t take long to get addicted.

How has the FDA tried to reduce kids’ access to vapes?

Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is grappling with the latest in a string of court cases brought by vape and e-cigarette makers to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ability to regulate the products.

When the FDA started regulating tobacco in 2009, it had no authority over electronic cigarettes. It took until 2016 for the FDA to gain the authority to regulate the sale, advertising and distribution of e-cigarettes.

Technically, the FDA must approve all vapes before they can be marketed. But the FDA has only approved 34 vape products out of the hundreds publicly available.

The FDA sends warning letters to companies doing particularly bad things, like those selling vapes that looked like toys, video games and highlighter markers. But it’s challenging because there are so many kinds of vapes. Companies exploit loopholes in regulations, and regulations haven’t kept up.

UCSF is home to the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents, the world’s largest archive of previously secret Big Tobacco papers. How are researchers using these to uncover new insights into tobacco industry tactics?

Right now, the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education is one of the first research bodies to begin digging into the recently acquired Juul documents. We’re looking at those papers and other companies’ collections housed in the archive to uncover how companies’ tactics exacerbate health inequalities using targeted marketing or attempts to influence community leaders.

We’re also examining papers to see how the industry influenced scientific research and policies and how that impacted communities that are already disproportionately affected by tobacco’s health impacts.

Laura López González writes for UC San Francisco.

On Monday, the Department of Water Resources announced an update to the State Water Project allocation forecast for 2025.

The allocation has increased to 15 percent of requested supplies, up from the initial allocation forecast of 5 percent announced earlier this month. The SWP provides water to 29 public water agencies that serve 27 million Californians.

Strong storms in late November and early December have helped boost statewide precipitation to just above average for this time of year. Reservoir levels have also increased because of the storms.

The initial allocation forecast announced on Dec. 2 had not accounted for these storms because the data was not yet available to water managers. Prior to the second half of November, the start of the water year had been dry and warm.

“The past several weeks has brought welcome rain and snow to Northern California and these improved conditions have allowed the State Water Project to increase the allocation forecast to the benefit of millions of Californians,” said DWR Director Karla Nemeth. “While we typically wait to provide an update until January, we felt it important to let our State Water Contractors know of the increase as soon as possible to allow them to better plan their water supply for the year ahead.”

State water managers will continue to monitor precipitation and snowpack conditions as well as account for dry soils that may soak up some of the spring runoff following record heat this past summer. Additionally, Southern California remains very dry and has not benefited from the atmospheric rivers experienced so far this season.

“California is still in the early months of our wet season and as recent history has shown, conditions can change quickly,” said Dr. Michael Anderson, State Climatologist. “While Northern California has benefitted from early season storms, dry conditions in the new year can leave us with below average totals when warmer weather arrives."

Each year, DWR provides SWP allocation forecasts based on available water storage, projected water supply, and water demands. Allocations are updated monthly as snowpack, rainfall, and runoff information is assessed, with a final allocation typically determined in May or June. As the winter progresses, if California sees an increase in rain and snowfall, the allocation forecast may increase.

"The Department of Water Resources’ updated 15% allocation for the State Water Project demonstrates a responsive approach to California’s evolving climate challenges,” said Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors. “We appreciate DWR making this early adjustment to reflect the benefits of recent storms not factored into their initial allocation. While the increase is encouraging, allocations remain conservative, and this situation underscores the precarious balance of our water supply system in the face of unpredictable weather patterns.”

Pierre continued, “This reality highlights the limitations of our current infrastructure and regulatory framework. Modest increases in supply can bring cautious optimism, but the need for greater resilience is clear. Investments in modern infrastructure, such as the Delta Conveyance Project, along with updates to regulatory processes through initiatives like the Agreements to Support Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, are critical. These efforts will equip us with the tools to better manage water resources for homes, farms, businesses, and the environment, even amid California’s rapidly shifting climate.”

She said the contractors are grateful for the incoming storms and look forward to further storms and allocation adjustments in January, “but long-term solutions require decisive action now."

The next update will likely come in January and will use information from the first snow surveys of the season.

The allocation forecast notice to State Water Contractors and historical data on SWP allocations are available at https://water.ca.gov/programs/state-water-project/management/swp-water-contractors.

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — Lake County saw a small increase in its unemployment rate in November, while the state rate remained unchanged and the national rate ticked up slightly.

The California Employment Development Department’s report on the jobless rate said the state’s unemployment rate was 5.4% in November, the same rate as October. The November 2023 rate was 4.9%.

Lake County’s jobless rate in November was 6.2%, compared to 6.1% in October and 6% in November 2023.

Nationwide, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the November unemployment rate was 4.2%. The October rate was 4.1% and November 2023 rate was 3.7%.

The report said California gained 11,100 nonfarm payroll jobs in November, with a year-to-date gain of 167,000 jobs.

The job market expansion reached 55 months in November 2024, with the report also noting that California gained 3,182,400 jobs — averaging 57,862 per month — since April 2020.

EDD records showed that Lake County gained 160 jobs from October to November — growing from 17,380 to 17,540. However, at the same time, the civilian labor force grew from 28,400 to 28,770 individuals, a growth of 370 people.

The report said that five of California's 11 industry sectors gained jobs in November with private education and health services, with a gain of 13,100 jobs, leading the way with significant gains in healthcare-related industry groups. Lake County showed a 2.9% growth rate in that industry.

The EDD said that for the ninth consecutive month, trade, transportation and utilities showed an increase of 5,700 jobs, with many of its gains happening in retail, and couriers and messengers, as holiday hiring ramped up and activity increased at California ports. In Lake County, that industry grew by 2.1%.

Statewide, financial activities showed the largest month-over reduction with a loss of 4,400 jobs due to weakness in the real estate and rental and leasing subsector as well as in some financial investment-related fields. Lake County, however, showed a 6.1% growth in this sector in November.

Other key industries and their growth or declines statewide and Lake County include the following:

• Professional and business services: 2,600 jobs added; 10% growth in Lake County.
• Information: 2,100 jobs added; no growth in Lake County.
• Mining and logging: 100 jobs; no growth in Lake County.
• Leisure and hospitality: -400 jobs; 1.7% growth in Lake County.
• Manufacturing: -600 jobs; -5.3% decline in Lake County.
• Government: -1000 jobs; 0.2% growth in Lake County.
• Other services: -3,300 jobs; no growth in Lake County.

Lake County’s jobless rate ranked it No. 43 of California’s 58 counties.

Lake’s neighboring county jobless rates and ranks in November were: Colusa, 11.9%, No. 57; Glenn, 5.9%, No. 38; Mendocino, 5.1%, No. 23; Napa, 4.3%, No. 10; Sonoma, 4.1%, No. 8; and Yolo, 5.2%, No. 26.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, and on Bluesky, @erlarson.bsky.social. Find Lake County News on the following platforms: Facebook, @LakeCoNews; X, @LakeCoNews; Threads, @lakeconews, and on Bluesky, @lakeconews.bsky.social.