As he answered questions from reporters in the Twin Cities for the first time this week, new backup quarterback Carson Wentz couldn’t help but think of how the younger version of himself would feel.

“I grew up cheering for the Vikings,” Wentz said. “It’s kind of surreal.”

Though he had a bunch of different jerseys as a kid, Wentz remembers being a rising star at Century High School in Bismarck, N.D. when legendary quarterback Brett Favre shockingly joined the Vikings and led them to the 2009 NFC championship game

“That was pretty special,” Wentz said. “That was right around the time I was all in.”

After signing with the Vikings as a free agent this week, Wentz is all in once again. He spent the past few months waiting around for the right opportunity to present itself and found it roughly 400 miles from his hometown.

“It beats sitting on the couch,” Wentz said. “I was pretty excited to get the call.”

There was never a doubt in Wentz’s mind that he was going to sign somewhere. That’s why he continued to work out on his own. He wanted to make sure he was ready whenever his phone rang.

“Honestly I didn’t think I’d be waiting this long,” Wentz said. “Just kind of the way it unfolded.”

As competitive as he is at his core, Wentz understands that task at hand. He hasn’t been brought in to compete for the job. He has been brought in to help mentor young quarterback J.J. McCarthy more than anything else.

“He seems great,” Wentz said. “He’s still a kid. He’s 22 years old. I think when I was 22 years old I was gearing up to play for the Bison.”

After starring at North Dakota State in Fargo in college, Wentz was selected by the Philadelphia Eagles with the No. 2 overall pick in the 2016 draft. He knows what it’s like to be a face of the franchise. There aren’t many people on the planet that understand what that feels like.

“I’m excited to help him however I can,” Wentz said. “I’ve been in his shoes.”

How exactly does Wentz plan to help McCarthy?

“It comes with feeling out his personality and figuring out what he needs,” Wentz said. “He’s very receptive to ideas. We’re going to work together on that and try to help him get settled in. I think he’ll do a great job.”

Naturally, Wentz is also focused on doing a great job, albeit in a different role than he had early in his career.

“Just willingness to put the team first,” Wentz said. “Whatever that looks like both on the field and off the field.”

As for his fandom for the Vikings, that went out the window as soon as he was selected by the Eagles, and it remained dormant as he bounced around from the Indianapolis Colts to the Washington Commanders to the Los Angeles Rams to the Kansas Chiefs Chiefs.

Now that he’s with the Vikings?

“All of those things are rushing back here this week,” Wentz said. “I’ve got family members and friends back home, and everybody is stoked.”

Minnesota Vikings cornerback Xavier Rhodes (29) and Philadelphia quarterback Carson Wentz (11) talk after the Vikings beat Philadelphia, 38-20 at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis on Sunday, Oct. 13, 2019. (John Autey / Pioneer Press)

Related Articles

Adam Thielen is back home with the Vikings and he couldn’t be happier

The Loop: Nipsey Russell’s 2025 NFL Preview

Homecoming! Vikings bring Adam Thielen home to Minnesota via trade

Who did the Vikings keep on their initial 53-man roster? Here’s a look

Vikings trade Mekhi Blackmon to Colts, add more picks to their war chest

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN and MORGAN LEE

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A simmering feud over management of one of North America’s longest rivers reached a boiling point when the U.S. Supreme Court sent western states and the federal government back to the negotiating table last year.

Related Articles

Cruise industry sues to challenge Hawaii’s tourism tax designed to deal with climate change issues

Trump admin cancels $679 million for offshore wind projects as attacks on reeling industry continue

Fire departments concerned about cancer risks are buying gear that is free of forever chemicals

States fast-track wind, solar permits and contracts to beat Trump’s deadline

Massachusetts cranberry bogs are being given a second life as vibrant wetlands

Now the battle over waters of the Rio Grande could be nearing resolution as New Mexico, Texas and Colorado announced fresh settlement proposals Friday designed to rein in groundwater pumping along the river in New Mexico and ensure enough river water reliably makes it to Texas.

New Mexico officials say the agreements allow water conservation decisions to be made locally while avoiding a doomsday scenario of billion-dollar payouts on water shortfalls.

Farmers in southern New Mexico increasingly have turned to groundwater as hotter and drier conditions reduced river flows and storage. That pumping is what prompted Texas to sue, claiming the practice was cutting into water deliveries.

It will be up to the special master overseeing the case to make a recommendation to the Supreme Court.

If endorsed by the court, the combined settlements promise to restore order to an elaborate system of storing and sharing water between two vast, adjacent irrigation districts in southern New Mexico and western Texas.

Still, tough decisions await New Mexico under its new obligations.

Divvying up a dwindling resource

In 1939, when New Mexico was a young, sparsely populated state, it ratified a compact with Texas and Colorado for sharing the waters of the Rio Grande. The agreement defined credits and debits and set parameters for when water could be stored upstream.

From the San Luis Valley in Colorado to below Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico, the compact called for gages to monitor the river, ensuring downstream obligations were met.

Meeting the nearly century-old metrics has become harder as snowpacks shrink in the mountains that feed the Rio Grande. Thirsty soil soaks up more snowmelt and runoff before it reaches tributaries, warmer temperatures fuel evaporation, and summer rainy seasons that once boosted flows and recharged reservoirs are more erratic.

The equation is further complicated by growing populations. The Rio Grande provides drinking water for about 6 million people and helps to irrigate millions of acres of cropland in the U.S. and in Mexico.

While the Colorado River gets all the headlines, experts say the situation along the Rio Grande is just as dire.

Triple whammy

The proposed settlements would provide a detailed accounting system for sharing water with Texas.

New Mexico could rely on credits and debits from year to year to navigate through drought and wet periods, though it could be responsible for additional water-sharing obligations if deliveries are deferred too long.

The international group Sustainable Waters is wrapping up an extensive study on how the river’s water is being used.

Brian Richter, the group’s president, said that over the last couple of decades, New Mexico has lost more than 70% of its reservoir storage along the river while groundwater has been extracted faster than it can be replenished. Add to that New Mexico has fallen behind in its water deliveries to Texas.

Richter called it a triple whammy.

“We’re definitely in a precarious situation and it’s going to become more challenging going forward,” he said. “So I think it’s going to require sort of a major reenvisioning of what we want New Mexico’s water future to look like.”

The parties in the case say the proposed agreements will facilitate investments and innovation in water conservation.

“The whole settlement package really provides for the long-term vitality, economic vitality, for the communities in both New Mexico and Texas,” said Hannah Riseley-White, director of the Interstate Stream Commission.

New Mexico would have two years to adopt a plan to manage and share water along its southernmost stretch of the Rio Grande. The state can still pump some groundwater while monitoring aquifer levels.

“The burden is on New Mexico,” said Stuart Somach, lead attorney for Texas in the Rio Grande dispute.

All dried up

In Albuquerque, it looks grim.

It’s common to have stretches of the Rio Grande go dry farther south, but not in New Mexico’s largest city. Prior to 2022, it had been four decades since Albuquerque had seen the muddy waters reduced to isolated puddles and lengthy sandbars.

Aside from a changing climate, water managers say the inability to store water in upstream reservoirs due to compact obligations exacerbates the problem.

Many of the intricacies of managing the Rio Grande are as invisible to residents as the water itself.

Sisters Zoe and Phoebe Hughes set out to take photos during a recent evening, anticipating at least a sliver of water like usual. Instead they found deep sand and patchwork of cracked, curled beds of clay.

“It’s so dystopian. It’s sad,” Phoebe Hughes said, adding that the river isn’t so grand now.

Looking for a silver lining, the two collected pieces of riverbed clay, hoping they could fashion it into something. Other curious visitors played in the sand and walked dogs.

Downstream, Elephant Butte stands at less than 4% of capacity. The reservoir is an irrigation lifeline for farmers, fuels a hydropower station and serves as a popular recreation spot.

Reducing use

The settlements call for reducing groundwater depletions to a rate of 18,200 acre-feet per year. While that’s about one-sixth of the drinking water supplied to New York City each day, for the arid West, it’s a monumental amount.

New Mexico officials expect to achieve most of those reductions from buying water rights from willing sellers, meaning more than 14 square miles (36 square kilometers) of farmland would be retired.

Many details — and the price tag — have yet to be worked out, the general counsel for the New Mexico state engineer’s office told state lawmakers this month. The Legislature in 2023 set aside $65 million toward the settlements and related infrastructure projects, and the state is tapping additional federal dollars. But it will still need more funds, experts say.

Riseley-White said it will take a combination of efforts, including long-term fallowing programs, water conservation and more efficient irrigation infrastructure.

“There isn’t one answer. It’s going to be necessarily an all-of-the-above approach,” she said, acknowledging that there will be less water in the future.

Attorney Sam Barncastle, who worked for years on behalf of irrigators, worries small farming operations and backyard gardeners could ultimately be pushed out.

“Farmland does not come back once it’s gone,” she said.

Peppers and pecans

The overall idea is to avoid abruptly curtailing water for users, but farmers in southern New Mexico have concerns about how much water will be available and who will be able to use it.

New Mexico is the nation’s No. 2 pecan producer, and the sprawling orchards would die without consistent water. The state also is home to world-renowned chilies — a signature crop tightly woven into New Mexico’s cultural identity.

Ben Etcheverry, a board member of the New Mexico Chile Association, said farmers have transitioned to drip irrigation to save water and energy but are continually told they have to do more with even less water and pay higher rates.

“It just becomes a game of whack-a-mole while we try to do better,” he said. “Every time we do better, it seems they turn it into a punishment.”

Lee reported from Santa Fe.

By JAIMIE DING and TRÂN NGUYỄN

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers have struck a deal with rideshare companies Uber and Lyft to allow drivers to join a union and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits.

Related Articles

Spirit Airlines files for bankruptcy protection again

Sunblock, charcoal … and Powerball? Holiday weekend lottery drawing worth $1 billion

Bookmaker linked to baseball star Shohei Ohtani’s interpreter sentenced to just over a year

Labor Day weekend has arrived. What to know about the holiday

Minneapolis, a series of shootings and the grim realities of a tough summer

The agreement includes a bill for collective bargaining backed by the Service Employees International Union along with a measure sponsored by Uber and Lyft that would significantly reduce the companies’ insurance requirements for accidents caused by underinsured drivers, would ultimately reduce costs for passengers.

“Labor and industry sat down together, worked through their differences, and found common ground that will empower hundreds of thousands of drivers while making rideshare more affordable for millions of Californians,” Newsom said in a press release.

The legislative package represents a significant compromise in the yearslong battle between labor unions and tech companies.

Last July, the California Supreme Court ruled that app-based ride-hailing and delivery services like Uber and Lyft can continue treating their drivers as independent contractors not entitled to benefits like overtime pay, paid sick leave and unemployment insurance. It upheld a voter-approved ballot measure passed in 2020 that reversed a 2019 law mandating that Uber and Lyft provide drivers with benefits.

The collective bargaining bill would allow the more than 800,000 rideshare workers in California to join a union while still being classified as independent contractors. Currently, independent contracters are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, a federal law that grants workers collective bargaining rights and protections.

David Green, president of SEIU Local 721, called it the “largest expansion of private sector collective bargaining in California history.”

With the endorsement from Newsom and legislative leaders, it will likely become law, but it still has to be passed in the Senate and the Assembly in the next two weeks before being signed by the governor to be enacted.

Some of the issues that rideshare drivers say they face include being “deactivated” from the app without an explanation or fair appeals process if a passenger complains.

FILE – A Lyft sign is displayed in a driver’s car in San Francisco, April 27, 2023. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

Margarita Penazola, a driver and member of the California Gig Workers Union advocacy group, said this happened to her a few years ago, resulting in three days of lost income. She believes the ability to unionize would give drivers a voice to address these issues.

“It means being able to speak up and protect ourselves and our passengers without fear,” Penazola said. “We’re the ones out there every day. We’re the ones that know what’s really happening on the ground, and we should be a part of the decisions that impact our jobs and the people we are trusted to drive safely.”

Another driver, Mike Robinson, said he saw his pay go from $700 per week driving 40 hours per week when he first started in 2015, to $500 per week today, before expenses like gas and maintenance. When he was diagnosed with cancer in 2023, he couldn’t work and did not have health insurance, he said.

“We need to be able to bargain for fair pay, basic protections and real benefits,” Robinson said.

California would be the second state where drivers would be able to unionize after Massachusetts voters passed a ballot referendum last November allowing drivers to do the same. Uber and Lyft initially opposed the bill.

FILE – An Uber sign is displayed at the company’s headquarters in San Francisco, Sept. 12, 2022. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

“We’re encouraged to see these two bills advancing in tandem,” Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, said in a press release. “Together, they represent a compromise that lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers.”

Uber and Lyft fares in California are consistently higher than in other parts of the U.S. because of insurance requirements, according to the companies. Uber has said that nearly one-third of every ride fare in the state goes toward paying for state-mandated insurance.

The insurance bill would reduce the coverage requirement for accidents caused by uninsured or under-insured drivers from $1 million to $60,000 per individual and $300,000 per accident.

Nick Johnson, director of public policy at Lyft, said it will bring “runaway insurance costs under control” and help “maintain the affordability of rideshare.”

By PAUL WISEMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

Related Articles

Trump administration plans to remove nearly 700 unaccompanied migrant children, senator says

Trump’s new CDC chief: A Washington health insider with a libertarian streak

Trump admin cancels $679 million for offshore wind projects as attacks on reeling industry continue

US revokes visas of Palestinian president and other officials ahead of UN General Assembly

Judges, defense lawyers and grand jurors poke holes in cases from Trump’s DC federal intervention

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, largely upholding a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the court’s 7-4 decision tossed out a part of that ruling striking down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The decision complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision. “A ruling against the tariffs would represent not just a legal defeat, but a serious blow to the administration’s coercive trade diplomacy model.″

The government also might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.