宜宾哪里打针弄鼻子好些宜宾玻尿酸有什么副作用,宜宾做假体隆鼻,宜宾如何让单眼皮变双眼皮,宜宾玻尿酸丰额头效果,宜宾割一对双眼皮手术多少钱,宜宾做割双眼皮手术价格,宜宾哪家已经割双眼皮好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Californians who lost their home insurance because of the threat of wildfires will be able to buy comprehensive policies next year through a state-mandated plan under an order issued Thursday by the state insurance commissioner.As wildfires threaten the state, insurance companies have been dropping many homeowners who live in fire-prone areas.Most of those people turn to the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to issue policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own.But FAIR Plan policies are limited, offering coverage for fires, explosions and limited smoke damage.California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara on Thursday ordered the plan to begin selling comprehensive policies by June 1 to cover lots of other problems, including theft, water damage, falling objects and liability.Lara also ordered the plan to double homeowners’ coverage limits to million by April 1.“You have people that now are being sent to the FAIR Plan and they have no other alternative. They won’t even get a call back from an insurance company to offer them a quote,” Lara said.The FAIR Plan has been around since 1968. It is not funded by tax dollars. Instead, all property and casualty insurance companies doing business in California must contribute to the plan.Known as the “insurer of last resort,” the plan has been growing in recent years as wildfires have become bigger and more frequent because of climate change. FAIR Plan policies in fire-prone areas have grown an average of nearly 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance.Likewise, since 2015 insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data comes from the state, and it does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.The FAIR Plan is governed by a board of directors appointed by various government officials. Lara says he has the authority to reject its operating plan. On Thursday, he ordered it to submit a new plan within 30 days that includes an option for comprehensive policies and other changes.California FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan did not respond to an email seeking comment.It’s unknown how much the plan’s new policies will cost. But rates for FAIR Plan policies are supposed to break even. The insurance industry must cover any losses. And if the plan generates a profit, that money is given back to insurance companies.FAIR Plan policies have been limited because, in general, the insurance industry doesn’t want state-mandated plans to compete with private insurance plans. But Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders — a nonprofit advocating for consumers in the insurance industry — says her group is “hearing from panicked consumers daily.”“If (insurance companies) don’t like it, the solution really is to start doing their job and selling insurance again,” she said. “This is an untenable situation.” 3083

Richard Ojeda, the former congressional candidate who lost his 2018 bid as a Democrat in southern West Virginia, is running for president in 2020."I'm Richard Ojeda and I'm running for the President of the United States of America," he announced Monday at the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC.Prior to his announcement, Ojeda filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for President and teased the run in an email to supporters on Sunday night.Ojeda's entry to the race is unexpected and highlights just how massive the Democratic field for President will be in 2020. Democratic operatives believe big-name candidates will announce presidential bids in early 2019, but fully expect candidates like Ojeda and others to explore a run starting in late 2018.Ojeda's unique candidacy -- he is a former Army paratrooper who ran on the Democratic ticket as a populist and Trump critic in Republican West Virginia -- markedly over-performed how Hillary Clinton did in the state in 2016. Trump won the state's 3rd Congressional District by 49 percentage points in 2016. Ojeda closed that gap, losing by 12 percentage points earlier this month.But getting through a Democratic primary could be difficult: Ojeda voted for Trump in 2016, something that may be beyond the pale for some Democrats.Ojeda has soured on Trump, though, and Trump called him "a total whacko" at campaign events in 2018.At his announcement on Monday, Ojeda said, "I think I relate to the people far more than what the President can ever relate to these people. The very people he comes down to West Virginia and stands in front of could never afford one single round of golf in some of his fancy country clubs. That's not where I stand."He continued, "I stand with the working-class citizens. I am a Democrat because I believe in what the Democratic Party is supposed to be: taking care of our working-class citizens."Although Ojeda handily lost to Republican Carol Miller, he told his supporters in an email on Sunday that his run taught him people across the country were feeling the same pain that he has seen in Appalachia."Everyday, hundreds of letters poured in from around the country where you shared your stories with me. You wrote about not being able to afford college, losing loved ones to drug addiction and struggling day-to-day to make ends meet," he writes. "This is an American problem and it has to change."Ojeda has long argued that the Democratic Party has lost its roots and become a party controlled by special interests and wealthy donors, and his presidential campaign will likely hinge on that message.He closes the email by inviting supporters to join him for a noon ET announcement.Ojeda got ahead of the announcement, however, by filing a presidential committee with the FEC and sitting down for an interview with The Intercept, where he announced his intention to run."We're going to have quite a few lifetime politicians that are going to throw their hat in the ring, but I guarantee you there's going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are people like myself that is, a working-class person that basically can relate to the people on the ground, the people that are actually struggling," he told The Intercept. "I'm not trying to throw stones at people that are rich, but once again, we will have a field that will be full of millionaires and I'm sure a few billionaires." 3406

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Authorities in California believe they’ve solved a 25-year-old cold case rape.The Riverside Police Department announced Friday that officers had apprehended 49-year-old Ralph Leslie Kroll in connection with the sexual assault of an 18-year-old woman in October 1995.Police say the victim was walking when she was attacked by a stranger, forced into a nearby apartment complex and assaulted.Investigative leads were exhausted and it remained a cold case until police say DNA evidence was able to identify Kroll as a suspect.After obtaining an arrest warrant for Kroll, police teamed up with the U.S. Marshals Service to locate and arrest him at his Eastvale home on Thursday. Kroll was then booked into the Robert Presley Detention Center on charges of rape by force, kidnapping, and the use of a deadly weapon by a sex offender. He's being held on a million bail.Anyone with additional information regarding this investigation and arrest should contact Detective Karla Beler at (951) 353-7138 or kbeler@riversideca.gov. 1050