Virginia farmers looking for a sustainable way to tend to their crops can look at regenerative agriculture. The idea is to focus on soil health and the carbon sequestration of the land. It improves the soil quality without artificially fertilizing it.

Steve Normanton, farmer and owner of Normanton Farms, utilizes regenerative agriculture and finds it has numerous benefits, one of which is keeping plants healthy for consumption.

"You are what you eat, right? So what you want to be putting into your body is the healthiest possible food that you possibly can," Normanton stressed. "You're looking at that, and you're thinking about regenerative agriculture. It's all about creating healthy soil."

He added another way it is sustainable for farming is the soil's health makes for better crops, since it is not reliant on pesticides.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, agriculture accounted for about 11% of climate change in 2020.

Despite the benefits of regenerative agriculture, farms still have to go with a method which keeps their business afloat.

Lotanna Obodozie, climate campaign director for the National Young Farmers Coalition, believes making a profit and doing regenerative agriculture doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

"I think that even though there isn't that specific focus on pure yield and farm size, this still is a profitable method of farming," Obodozie asserted. "But, again, because regenerative agriculture takes a more holistic approach to farming, the sole focus isn't just profit."

Some of the long-term benefits of regenerative agriculture include better water retention, better ability to hold nutrients and reduced soil erosion. She added one key point of this method of farming is the focus on keeping land healthy for generations to come.

The feasibility of putting solar panels over the state's network of canals is the topic of a big new research project, co-led by the University of Southern California.

The California Solar Canal Initiative builds on a study from the University of California-Merced, which found solar arrays over the canals could generate clean energy, conserve water, reduce air pollution and save land.

Monica Dean, director of climate and sustainability practice at the University of Southern California-Dornsife, said the research will answer practical questions.

"How would we do it? Which canals make the most sense? How much energy could they actually produce? What would the economic implications of doing this be?" Dean outlined. "We're taking a hypothetical scenario and making it real."

The research phase will last about two years and is expected to provide a roadmap for policymakers, utilities and communities. The original Merced study estimated covering the Golden State's canals with solar panels could generate enough electricity to power about 2 million homes each year.

Covered canals also prevent evaporation and could save enough water to meet the residential needs of up to 2 million people per year and they could lower maintenance costs, since fewer weeds grow in shade.

Dean estimated the arrays could save about 50,000 acres of land.

"Rather than needing to put a solar panel on land that could be used for housing or farming or some other purpose, now you're just repurposing existing infrastructure and making it work a little bit harder," Dean emphasized.

The initiative is cosponsored by the independent advisory firm Solar AquaGrid. It will also include faculty from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Irvine, the University of California-Merced and the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, plus San Jose State University and the University of Kansas.

Insurance rates are rising quickly in California because of fires and floods linked to climate change and now, two new bills in Sacramento seek to make oil and gas companies pay.

The Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act would create legal pathways for homeowners, insurance companies and the state insurance plan to sue and recover losses from oil and gas companies.

Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director for the nonprofit California Environmental Voters, said the companies misled lawmakers and the public.

"The one group that hasn't paid their fair share in all of this is oil and gas companies," Romero contended. "They knew since the '70s and the '80s that their products were creating runaway climate change. They hid the science, they did nothing about it, and they continued to push an agenda that stymied a lot of efforts to switch over to clean energy."

The Western States Petroleum Association called the bills a way for politicians to capitalize on tragedy. The California Independent Petroleum Association said the real culprits for the fires are arsonists, environmental lawsuits that prevent forest management, and cuts to firefighting budgets.

Romero also supports the Polluters Pay Superfund bill, which would charge fossil fuel companies according to their role in climate change and invest in climate-resilient communities.

"It requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to do a report about the actual costs, both looking backwards and forwards, that climate change has caused to California in terms of our infrastructure, disaster response and things like that," Romero outlined.

Proponents of the bills complained insurance ratepayers and taxpayers are hard hit by climate disasters. The state's FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort, has assessed insurers and ratepayers $1 billion for Los Angeles wildfire claims so far. Meanwhile, State Farm is likely to get regulators' permission to raise homeowners' insurance rates by 22% after a hearing on April 8.

In the face of the severe effects of climate change across the country, new research offers a framework for how to measure Washington's climate resilience.

The research supports Washington's Climate Resilience Strategy, which was published last year.

Carlie Stowe, climate resilience specialist for the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and the paper's lead author, said building resilience is critical in order to minimize effects from droughts, fires and other extreme weather events.

"As the government is investing in resilience, we want to make sure that we're spending that money wisely," Stowe urged. "And that the programs and activities we're investing in are resulting in increased resilience."

Stowe pointed out the research compares Washington's and South Carolina's approaches to climate preparedness to serve as a guide for other states. She added the research is one way to demonstrate Washington's leadership in this area, as taking such measurements is a new practice at the state level.

Stowe noted measuring climate resilience means incorporating data from dozens of sources, across communities, infrastructure, land and governance. It includes air quality levels, damage to infrastructure, and evacuations in extreme events like floods or wildfires.

She emphasized it was helpful to partner with South Carolina on this research, even though each state ended up with a different measurement framework.

"There's a lot more that we can learn together," Stowe stressed. "Continuing partnerships like this is really important for further building resilience across our country."

Stowe added the Washington State Department of Ecology will be implementing the plans and the public will start seeing initial results of the measurements in September.