Joseph Krist
Publisher
AFTER THE FIRE
The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office has released its FY 2027 assessment roll. It provides an opportunity to view the impact of the January 2025 fires on the tax base. Under California’s Misfortune and Calamity program, damaged properties can receive temporary assessment cuts that lower tax bills during reconstruction, with values restored after rebuilding is finished.
Through that relief, more than $9 billion in taxable value was reduced for owners whose homes were destroyed in the fires. Redevelopment is occurring albeit at a relatively slow pace. As of May 19, 2026, 49 homes in Altadena were complete, and more than 1,400 were under construction. By that same date, the county had received more than 3,300 permit applications and issued more than 2,300 residential permits in the fire zones.
In spite of the impact of the fires and recovery, The Los Angeles County Assessor reported that the roll totaled $2.272 trillion in net taxable value, up $96 billion, or 4.42%, from the 2025 roll and marking the county’s 16th consecutive year of growth. Growth reflected property transfers added $49 billion, the largest increase of any category. The Proposition 13 inflation factor contributed another $43 billion, and new construction added more than $12 billion.
CORPUS CHRISTI WATER
In Corpus Christi. The City Council has ordered that a public referendum be held on a citizen-led petition that would sharply increase the price of water for industrial facilities during drought. The Fair Water Amendment would implement a 70 percent water rate increase for Corpus Christi’s largest industrial water users when reservoirs dip below 30 percent capacity. It would implement an increase of 140 percent when reservoirs dip below 20 percent, and a 280 percent increase if the city declares a water emergency.
The region’s main reservoirs fell from 30 percent full in March of 2024 to less than eight percent full in May 2026. Above expectation rains in the spring and summer replenished its main reservoir system, currently 42 percent full.
CONGESTION PRICING
The NYC Department of Health has released the results of its first study of the environmental impacts of the congestion pricing zone in Manhattan. When the plan was enacted, one of the prime drivers of public comment was the potential for air quality to increase in Manhattan while the Bronx in particular would see negative air quality impacts. That issue has generated some surprises.
Generally, pollution at all locations held steady or improved slightly. This continues the trend of improving air quality in NYC over the past 20 years. Inside the CRZ, pollution decreased slightly or stayed the same in 2025 compared to 2024. Measured pollution levels were not significantly different because of congestion pricing.
At Environmental Justice neighborhood sites, congestion pricing didn’t increase pollution. This is good news. It didn’t worsen air quality near major routes around the CRZ. At one location (BQE) levels of one pollutant didn’t improve as much as would be expected in comparison to changes at the control site.
Traffic in the CRZ was lower. Entries to the CRZ, the FDR Dr, and the West Side Highway were 11% fewer in 2025 than before tolling began. In New York City, traffic produces only 10 percent of fine particulate matter. The report did not measure greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global warming. Buildings are responsible for about 70 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions.
There are at least two pending research studies on the subject from non-City sources. One also found that congestion pricing had had “little effect on air quality.” Another relying on data from 19 sensors across the South Bronx, detected an overall increase of 2 per cent in fine particulate matter between 2024 and 2025. To address these issues, the City will apply some $105 million out of its slice of $330 million of congestion pricing revenues.
PUERTO RICO POWER ISSUES
On Aug. 5 the Puerto Rico Supreme Court accepted Puerto Rico government lawsuits (from a lower court) regarding annulment of the contract with the private energy distributor LUMA and granted a 30-day period for the submission of arguments for the annulment. In addition, the Puerto Rico Oversight Board revoked its approval, provisionally granted in early June, for a contract to three
private companies to provide temporary power generation units for 10 years. The parent company of one of the three private companies said it hadn’t given its OK to the subsidiary to agree to the contract and on this basis the board said the contract was no longer valid. The contract was for over $5 billion over 10 years.
In mid-July the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau ordered PREPA to transfer $100 million to LUMA and the private generating entity Genera. But PREPA didn’t do it, saying in late July it didn’t have the money and was getting perilously low on cash.
It’s hard to see how the bankruptcy can be resolved without resolution of the contract issue with LUMA. How do you develop a reasonable plan to emerge from bankruptcy? How is it credible given LUMA’s operational track record on the island? Given all of the operational hurdles, cash
pressures should not be surprising.
As for other pressures, it is pretty clear that the current structure isn’t working. Reliability, repair, maintenance all seem to be beyond LUMA. A long-term solution to electric service in PR needs a serious
private partner, a viable customer base and investor capital. Those aren’t present right now. And the lack of reliability will continue and increase without investment.
COLORADO RIVER
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its plan to address declining water volumes in the Colorado River. Under the Bureau’s plan, California, Nevada and Arizona will collectively reduce water use by 1.25 million acre-feet (about 1.54 billion cubic meters) annually during that period, with the possibility of larger cuts depending on conditions. Arizona will see the biggest cuts. Meanwhile neighboring Mexico will reduce its intake by 250,000 acre-feet (about 310 million cubic meters) under a U.S.-Mexico treaty.
The biggest initial impact will be on the Central Arizona Project. Congress funded construction of the aqueduct in 1968. Funding for the project was contingent on the willingness of the Project to accept subordinate water rights. In times of severe drought, CAP facilities would receive lower volumes to allow California to maintain its usage levels. Phoenix gets about 40 percent of its water from the canal which began distributions in 1985.
In 2022, the canal project cut off most of its deliveries to the region’s nontribal agricultural fields, which have lower priority rights than cities. Those reductions would continue under the proposed federal framework.
The states upstream — Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico — do not face any for now.
FLORIDA TOURISM AND CANADA
Tourism numbers in Florida declined for a second consecutive quarter in 2026. The drop reflects lingering domestic inflationary conditions and a backlash from Canadian visitors over President Trump’s’s rhetoric and trade policies. An estimated 34.01 million second quarter visitors visited Florida in the spring, bringing the number of tourists over the first half of the year to 73.5 million, according to numbers posted by the state’s tourism marketing arm.
Domestic, overseas and Canadian travel into the state was all slightly down in the April through June period, compared to the same period a year earlier. The overall domestic and Canadian numbers for the first half of the year were also lower than in the same period of 2025. An estimated 721,000 Canadians traveled to Florida in the second quarter, 4.2% fewer than in the same period of 2025.
For the first six months of the year, there were 1.68 million Canadian travelers, a 13.9% drop from the same time in 2025. In 2019, second quarter numbers of Canadian travelers were 848,000, and for the first half of the year it was 2.29 million.
Disclaimer: The opinions and statements expressed in this column are solely those of the author, who is solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this column. The opinions and statements expressed on this website are for informational purposes only, and are not intended to provide investment advice or guidance in any way and do not represent a solicitation to buy, sell or hold any of the securities mentioned. Opinions and statements expressed reflect only the view or judgment of the author(s) at the time of publication, and are subject to change without notice. Information has been derived from sources deemed to be reliable, but the reliability of which is not guaranteed. Readers are encouraged to obtain official statements and other disclosure documents on their own and/or to consult with their own investment professional and advisors prior to making any investment decisions.