U.S District Judge Jesus Bernal may decide as early as Monday, March 9 whether to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of environmentalists aimed at protecting the ecology of a specific canyon near the top of the San Bernardino Mountains by preventing water originating at an elevation roughly a mile above sea level from being diverted into a pipeline to a bottling water operation collection site in the foothills above the City of San Bernardino.
Almost five years ago, on April 23, 2021, the California State Water Resources Control Board issued a tentative order to the bottler of Arrowhead Spring Water to discontinue diverting water from Strawberry Canyon at 5,200-foot to 5,600-foot elevation in the San Bernardino Mountains for use in its Arrowhead Spring Water bottling operation. After much back and forth between the Water Resources Control Board, including extensive hearings which took place between August 2021 and July 2023, in which hydrological, biological and legal experts representing both sides testified, in September 2023 that cease and desist order was finalized against the bottler, BlueTriton Brands. The U.S. Forest Service was responsible for the management of the property in Strawberry Canyon, insofar as it is federal land within the San Bernardino National Forest.. When the United States Forest Service failed to follow its own policies and regulations for issuing special use permits and did not ensure that the Water Resources Control Board’s order was enforced, the Save Our Forest Association in June 2024 sued the US Forest Service in an effort to force it to prevent the company from drafting any water from that mountain source.
Water originating in the San Bernardino Mountains and using the Arrowhead brand in one form or another had been marketed at least since 1909. Questions have long existed, however, as to whether the water rights originally claimed, attributed or granted to Arrowhead Puritas, the corporate predecessor to Arrowhead Spring Water, pertain to the current source of the water drawn at the 5,200-foot elevation level from Strawberry Creek in what is known as Strawberry Canyon rather than water drawn farther down the mountain at around the 2,000-foot above sea level. In 1929, the California Consolidated Waters Company was formed to merge three Los Angeles-based companies that bottled and distributed “Arrowhead Water,” “Puritas Water” and “Liquid Steam.” The property, bottling operations, water distribution and administration of Arrowhead Springs Company, Puritas of California Consumers Company and the water bottling division of Merchants Ice and Storage were all administered by California Consolidated Waters Company. In August 1930, California Consolidated Waters, on the basis of a single pipeline permit that was not based on any water rights and without having obtained a diversion permit or any further valid authorization or rights, started diverting spring water from a single “bedrock crevice” spring in the San Bernardino National Forest along Strawberry Creek at an elevation of 5,600 feet. Subsequently, in 1933 and 1934, the company put in place tunnels, ultimately accompanied by boreholes and horizontal wells at or near the headwaters of Strawberry Creek or a slightly lower elevation in Strawberry Canyon. Strawberry Creek was noted in maps and springs studies prior to the diversion to be a perennial stream which was fed by abundant flowing headwaters springs. The Arrowhead Water Bottling Company, under various names and corporate configurations, including divisions of Standard Oil of California and Rheem Manufacturing, continued to operate, drawing water from Strawberry Canyon throughout the 20th Century. In 1969, the Arrowhead Water Bottling Company was acquired by the Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles and in 1978, Chicago-based Northwest Industries acquired Arrowhead Puritas when it bought Coca Cola Bottling of Los Angeles. In 1982, Northwest Industries unloaded Coca-Cola Bottling of Los Angeles to Beatrice Foods. BCI subsequently acquired Beatrice in a leveraged buyout. While under BCI’s control, the U.S. Forest Service-issued Arrowhead Puritas water drafting permit in Strawberry Canyon expired, and the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company applied to extend the permit. In 1987, while that application was still pending, Perrier purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company.
The then-pending water extraction permit renewal required a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement and its environmental/ecological impact, which the U.S. Forest Service then did not have the immediately available resources to carry out. In a gesture of compromise, Perrier was allowed, pending the eventual Forest Service review, to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon by simply continuing to pay the $524-per year fee to perpetuate the water extraction under the terms of the expired permit. In 1992, when Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier, it inherited the Strawberry Canyon operation and continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the permit, which at that time existed under the name of the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co,” one that was never listed legally in corporate filings, but which operated under Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc. until it was acquired by BlueTriton Brands on March 31, 2021.
Nestlé’s intensive water-drafting activity, which had long been decried by environmentalists, came under increasing fire as a statewide drought, which lasted for more than five years after it first manifested in 2011, advanced.
In 2015, environmental groups were gearing up to file a lawsuit claiming the U.S. Forest Service had violated protocols and harmed the ecology of the mountain by allowing Nestlé Waters North America to continue its operations in Strawberry Canyon for 28 years after its permit expired. At that point, the Forest Service moved to make an environmental review. In the meantime, Nestlé continued its water extraction, pumping an average of 62.56 million gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino Mountains.
Among those was the Save Our Forest Association, Inc., which began writing to the US Forest Service protesting Nestlé’s use of the expired special use permit to divert the water from Strawberry Canyon, below Rimforest, to its water bottling plants. The United States Forest Service never responded to multiple requests for a meeting to discuss and review the environmental impacts of this long standing spring water diversion from our San Bernardino National Forest.
In April 2016, the United States Forest Service held a public scoping meeting, at which it proposed a 5-year National Environmental Policy Act Study to determine the possible impacts of the water diversions. The Save Our Forest Association objected to this plan and recommended a no action alternative in the National Environmental Policy Act study with no further water diversion for bottling and spring water capture at the bottom of the canyon with monitoring to determine if any excess water flow existed.
Environmentalists lodged protests with the water rights division of the California Water Resources Control Board, alleging Nestlé was diverting water without rights, making unreasonable use of the water it was taking, failing to monitor the amount drawn or make an accurate accounting of the water it was taking, and wreaking environmental damage by its action.
Following a two-year investigation, state officials arrived at a tentative determination that Nestlé could continue to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year. Nestlé had gone far beyond the water drafting limit the company was entitled to, the State Water Resources Control Board said, and was actually drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons), such that 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) the company was taking on an annual basis was unauthorized, according to a report released on December 21, 2017.
Nestlé, however, continued to draft water from Strawberry Canyon well in excess of 26 acre-feet of water annually, running to an amount near or exceeding its historic 192 acre-feet annual use pattern.
It was in response to citizen complaints regarding this that the California State Water Resources Board issued the April 23, 2021 draft cease and desist order, leading to the public hearings and finalized September 19, 2023 order which followed.
In March 2021, Nestlé’s parent company, Nestlé S.A., a corporate conglomerate headquartered in Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland, had sold its Nestlé Waters North America division, with the exception of its bottling rights to Perrier, to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC, in partnership with Metropoulos & Company. Nestlé Waters North America operations pertaining to bottling drinking water in the United States and Canada, including eight of the leading water bottling operations in the United States, upon the sale being completed to One Rock Capital and Metropoulos, was redubbed BlueTriton Brands.
Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water is among the most iconic of the brands now in the possession of BlueTriton. To the chagrin of the company, the California State Water Resources Control Board’s finalized determination on September 19, 2023 to issue the cease & desist order entailed a finding that “BlueTriton does not have any water rights that authorize these diversions and uses.”
Despite the California State Water Resources Control Board’s ruling, the U.S. Forest Service had extended the Strawberry Canyon water extraction permit first issued to BCI in the 1980s under the auspices of what the Forest Service now refers to as a “land use” fee that has grown from the previous the $524 per year to $2,500 annually.
On June 25, the Save Our Forest Association, represented by attorneys Rachel Doughty and Jennifer Rae Lovko filed suit in United States District Court in Riverside against the U.S. Forest Service and Michael Nobles in his official capacity as the acting district ranger for the San Bernardino National Forest, “challenging the U.S. Forest Service decision to allow BlueTriton Brands, Inc.’s illegal occupancy of San Bernardino National Forest lands and the dewatering of Strawberry Creek and its tributary Springs.”
According to the suit, BlueTriton Brands does not have, nor can it obtain or maintain, a valid special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service. With this illegal occupancy, BlueTriton Brands has engaged and will continue to engage in the diversion of substantially all of the water from the San Beernardino National Forest’s Strawberry Canyon, negatively impacting the forest, local communities, and downstream users.”
According to the lawsuit, “Strawberry Creek is a tributary to the Santa Ana River and part of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The United States Geologic Service documented that Strawberry Creek is a recharge source for the Bunker Hill Basin. The dry and diminished Strawberry Creek has led to impaired riparian fauna and flora and a creek that cannot support fish, like the native Speckled Dace, as fish need water to survive. BlueTriton Brands’ occupancy has dewatered Strawberry Creek and diverted natural springs leaving Strawberry Creek with only intermittent pooling water and fractured habitats. The Santa Ana River Watershed was decreed to have no water available for appropriation decades ago and is fully appropriated. The Bunker Hill Basin remains in deficit, giving diminished water for agricultural and nearly a million people. BlueTriton Brands is taking the Strawberry Creek water that should be recharging the basin. Plaintiff files this complaint to prevent the United States Forest Service from continuing to allow BlueTriton Brands’ occupancy and diversion of water in violation of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, The National Forest Management Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.”
According to the lawsuit the “Federal Land Policy Management Act [r]equires that public land be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.” The Federal Land Policy Management Act also, according to the lawsuit, “states that the United States shall receive fair market value of the use of the public land and their resources.”
The suit further propounds that “Defendant United States Forest Service is authorized under the Federal Land Policy Management Act to grant or renew rights of way upon United States Forest Service lands for various special uses, including “pipes, pipelines … and other facilities and systems for the impoundment, storage, transportation, or distribution of water. However, special use permits for such rights of way must be subject to terms and conditions that ensure compliance with federal and state laws regarding air and water quality and environmental protection, and that “minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the environment.”
According to the lawsuit, “The National Forest Management Act the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan, San Bernardino National Forest’s Forest Service Handbook National Environmental Policy Act Administrative Procedure Act requires the United States Forest Service to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise a land and resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. The land and resource management plan must ‘provide for … watershed, wildlife, and fish’ and ‘provide for diversity of plant and animal communities.’ All projects within a national forest must comply with that forest’s land and resource management plan. Here, the United States Forest Service must comply with the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan which was adopted in 2005. Land and resource management plans must include enforceable design criteria—’the rules’—that managers legally must operate within in order to achieve desired conditions set forth in the land and resource management plan’s ‘vision.’” Special use permits must include terms and conditions ‘which will . . . Require compliance with State standards for public health and safety, environmental protection, and siting, construction, operation, and maintenance if those standards are more stringent than applicable Federal standards.’ Issuance of a new special use authorization for an existing use is subject to the holder being in compliance with all the terms of existing authorization and must be accompanied by ‘appropriate environmental analysis.’ All proposals for special use also must provide information demonstrating the proposal’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and orders.”
The suit holds that “In keeping with National Forest Management Act’s mandates, the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan requires that for surface water development projects, ‘instream flows favorable to the maintenance and restoration of riparian dependent and aquatic resources and channel conditions will be required.’ It also requires that surface water diversions and groundwater extractions, including well and spring developments, may only be authorized upon demonstration that the water extracted is in excess to the current and reasonably foreseeable future needs of forest resources; approved extractions must provide for the ‘long-term protection and reasonable use of surface water and groundwater resources.’”
The suit asserts that “The land resource management plan’s mandates are intended to implement the overarching goals set forth in Part 1 of the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan. One of those goals is that ‘[w]atersheds, streams, groundwater recharge areas, springs, wetlands and aquifers are managed to assure the sustainability of high quantity and quality water. Where new or reauthorized water extraction or diversion is allowed, those facilities should be located to avoid long-term adverse impacts to national forest water and riparian resources.’ The land and resource management plan asks the ‘outcome evaluation question’ for Goal 5.1: ‘Is the national forest making progress toward sustaining Class 1 watershed conditions while reducing the number of Condition Class 2 and 3 watersheds?’ The San Bernardino National Forest land resource management plan incorporates the regarding soil and water conservation practices specific to the San Bernardino National Forest’s Forest Service Handbook. For riparian conservation areas, activities are limited, and watersheds are to be managed to improve degraded riparian areas for native populations of riparian-dependent species. Riparian conservation areas include perennial and intermittent springs, seeps, springs, and inner gorges. The San Bernardino National Forest’s Forest Service Handbook directs that: ‘Existing uses, activities, or occupancy within riparian conservation areas should be evaluated for risks or impacts and mitigated during special use renewal or re-issuance. If mitigation measures are not effective, reassess with the option to modify or eliminate the use, activity or occupancy when impacts are unacceptable.’”
The suit further argues that the forest service is required to review new special use permit applications for surface and ground water extraction and for transport of water across National Forest System lands to assess the potential impacts on aquatic and riparian ecosystems on or off the forest. The applicants for those permits should be required, the Save Our Forest Association maintains, to demonstrate that the proposed development would meet the riparian management objectives.”
The suit makes the point that “The San Bernardino National Forest’s Service Handbook further directs the United States Forest Service to manage watersheds to “improve or restore degraded riparian areas to proper functioning condition for native populations of riparian-dependent species.”
According to the suit, “The San Bernardino National Forest’s Service Handbook describes the affirmative duty of the USFS to ensure that ‘proof of water right is established prior to issuing or re-issuing [special use permits]’ and that the applicant has complied with ‘applicable environmental laws. … Where water use . . . is evident [the USFS must] ensure that all special use permit applicants have secured the appropriate … California Department of Fish and Game 1602 Stream Alternation [sic] Agreement … before issuing a special use permit that would result in channel alteration.’”
The lawsuit cites the National Environmental Policy Act’s declared intention to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment,” to help “prevent or eliminate damage to the environment,” and “to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.”
According to the suit, “The National Environmental Policy Act has two fundamental purposes: (1) to guarantee that, before taking an action, federal agencies take a ‘hard look’ at the consequences of that action to ensure that ‘the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts;’ and (2) to ensure that ‘the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision-making process and the implementation of that decision.’ As a practical matter, National Environmental Policy Act requires comparing a baseline, determined from ‘accurate information and defensible reasoning’ against the conditions expected after approval of a proposed project in order to determine the impact on the environment.”
Doughty and Lovko assert on the Save Our Forest Association’s behalf that “Supplemental National Environmental Policy Act analysis is required when ‘there are specific new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns that have bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.’ Supplemental environmental impact statements may also be required when the agency determines that the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act will be furthered by doing so.”
The Administrative Procedure Act provides for judicial review of agency action.
Doughty and Lovko maintain “Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court must ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions’ found to be ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’ or ‘unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.’ An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency ‘relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be …. the product of agency expertise.’ When reviewing agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court must ensure that the agency reviewed the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation establishing a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
According to the suit, the United States Forest Service’s allowing BlueTrion Brands to continue drawing water from Strawberry Creek after the determination by the California Board of Water Resources that it had no valid water rights relating to that water rendered its decision to grant BlueTriton Brands a continuation of the permit arbitrary and capricious, as it had ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’ that is at issue, which further represented a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a reviewing court must also set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be without observance of procedure required by law,” according to the suit.
According to the lawsuit, Strawberry Creek is tributary to East Twin Creek and the Santa Ana River. The West Fork of Strawberry Creek originates in the San Bernardino National Forest. Both the Headwaters Springs and the Cienega Springs are located within the San Bernardino National Forest. All of the water at issue in this complaint is diverted from the West Fork of Strawberry Creek Watershed, which is within the Strawberry Creek Watershed, and all within the San Bernardino National Forest. In the early 1900s, before any water was diverted from Strawberry Canyon, the canyons near the Arrowhead Hot Springs Hotel were wet and lush. Prior to diversion, Strawberry Creek was a popular fishing stream. United States Geological Survey teams visited and mapped Strawberry Creek Watershed in the late 1890s, establishing that Strawberry Creek was a perennial stream prior to diversion. United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps show Strawberry Creek as a perennial stream, and the Headwaters Springs and the Cienega Springs, all as blue lines.”
The suit references the survey work of Engineer W.P. Rowe, who was hired by BlueTrion Brand’s corporate predecessor to survey the area. The suit sites this statement from Rowe: “Strawberry creek drains a portion of the south slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. It has its source at a group of springs which issue from the side of Strawberry peak. … The flow from these springs being deep seated should be fairly regular, especially during the late summer season. The observations show this to be the case. The dependable supply will aggregate about 10 [miner’s] inches.”
One Miner’s Inch is the equivalent of 9 gallons per minute; 1 gallon per minute is the equivalent of 1,440 gallons per day; 1 gallon per minute is the equivalent of 1.61 acre-feet/year. Ten inches year-round even during dry periods, as described by Rowe, converts to 99 gallons per minute.
According to the suit, on July 27, 2018, Forest Ranger Joseph Rechsteiner signed a decision memo memorializing his decision to issue a new special use permit to Nestlé to operate and maintain existing diversion structures in Strawberry Canyon.
The suit maintains, “The initial studies provided by the permittee suggest that water extraction is reducing surface flow in Strawberry Creek. Ranger Rechsteiner himself performed only a perfunctory environmental review to support the 2018 decision memo, making findings of no extraordinary circumstances necessitating an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, despite the acknowledged ‘impaired’ status of Strawberry Creek Watershed due to the diversion. Despite acknowledged changes in management direction since issuance of the 1978 special use permit, no consideration was apparently given to a no action alternative requiring a return to pre-diversion baseline conditions in Strawberry Canyon. On January 22, 2021, Nestlé asked the Forest Service to renew the Nestlé 2018 special use permit for one year, expiring on August 24, 2022. This request was granted, without modification to the 2018 Nestlé special use permit.”
The suit propounds, “The contents of the Nestlé 2018 special use permit specified that the permit was not renewable, assignable, or transferable. The 2018 special use permit stated: ‘Any change in control of the business entity [holding the permit] shall result in termination of this permit.’
On March 31, 2021, the privately held private equity firm of One Rock
Capital Partners, LLC, in partnership with the also-privately-held Metropoulos & Co., acquired Nestlé in a leveraged buyout. This sale operated to terminate the Nestlé 2018 special use permit. Accordingly, on April 1, 2021, Nestlé filed with the USFS a ‘Request for Revocation’ of the August 24, 2018, Nestlé 2018 speical use permit, on the basis that Nestlé had ‘conveyed all my (our) right, title, and interest in and to the improvements,’ the diversion infrastructure, to BlueTriton Brands.”
BlueTriton Brands was the follow-on corporate entity to Nestlé Waters of America, which had previously operated the Arrowhead Spring Water Bottling Company.
According to the suit, “On August 18, 2022, Acting Ranger Joseph Rechsteiner signed a special use permit for BlueTriton Brands. This special use permit expired six days later on August 24, 2022. It stated that ‘The CA State Water Board enforcement hearing in 2022 may clarify the water rights related to the system and/or uphold the draft cease and desist order issued to the holder in 2021.”
According to the suit, the ultimate finding by the California State Water Resources Board that neither BlueTriton Brands nor any of its corporate predecessors hold or held water rights to the water in Strawberry Canyon, under the applicable restrictions of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan, San Bernardino National Forest’s Forest Service Handbook, National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act requires that the United States Forest Service bring BlueTriton Brand’s diversion of water from Strawberry Canyon to a halt.
The suit asks the court to adjudge and declare that the United States Forest Service’s actions in issuing the 2018 special use permit to
Nestlé and the 2023 special use permit to BlueTrion Brands violated the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and that allowing BlueTriton Brands to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon without a valid special use permit violates the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The suit further asks for the court to vacate and set aside the BlueTrion Brand’s 2023 special use permit, the 2018 decision memo, and the National Environmental Policy Act conclusions supporting the 2018 decision memo while enjoining the United States Forest Service from approving or allowing any third party to divert water from Strawberry Canyon by entry onto forest land unless and until the United States Forest Service has performed a new or supplemental environmental analysis taking into account the historical information illuminated through the California State Water Resources Control Board Hearing, continuing damage to resources on the San Bernardino National Forest, and the failure to meet goals and standards of the San Bernardino National Forest land and resource management plan.
This should be topped with, according to Doughty and Lovko, an order to the United States Forest Service to comply with the Federal Land Policy Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act in connection with BlueTriton Brand’s diversion of water from the Strawberry Creek Watershed and the removal of the water diversion structures in Strawberry Canyon to restore Strawberry Canyon to its condition pre-diversion. The suit also seeks reimbursement of the Save Our Forest Association’s cost in pursuing the suit.
The cease and desist order that was originally issued in draft form by the California State Water Resources Board against Nestlé and which is now in place against BlueTriton was appealed by BlueTriton Brands and assigned to a Fresno Superior Court. Meanwhile, the water diversions continues as BlueTriton and the United States Forest Service negotiated terms of a possible new special use permit despite the California State Water Control Board’s determination that BlueTriton holds no water rights in Strawberry Canyon.
Hugh A. Bialecki, the president of the Save Our Forest Association, said the group he leads had pursued the litigation because “Ten years of letter writing, collecting evidence and testifying to the California State Water Board has not yet resulted in the US Forest Service stopping the water giveaway to Nestlé/BlueTriton Brands. The US Forest Service must be accountable for protecting our natural resources.”
Both Nestlé and BlueTriton conveyed water down the mountainside in a pipeline from Strawberry Canyon to near the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, which is now owned by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, also known as the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. There, som of the water was loaded into tucks by Nestlé and later BlueTriton to be conveyed to a bottling plant, with the rest of the water given to he Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. for its use. That water was put into a reservoir or cisterns.
Because a portion of its water supply was being threatened by the lawsuit filed by the Save Our Forest Association against the U.S. Forest Service, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation sought permission to enter into the lawsuit as an intervenor on the basis that it should be allowed to participate in the case because it had a significant interest in the outcome. After it was granted intervenor status, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation filed a motion to have the entirety of the Save Our Forest Association’s lawsuit to be thrown out for a host of reasons, not limited to that BlueTriton, through its corporate predecessors, has historic rights to the water in Strawberry Canyon, that the creation and existence of the San Bernardino National Forest does not interfered with BlueTriton’s water rights in Strawberry Canyon, that the Forest Service has recognized BlueTriton’s rights to the Strawberry Canyon water for decades and that precedent should be honored, that the State Water Board overstepped its authority in issuing the cease and desist order against BlueTriton in relation to water use in Strawberry Canyon and that the Forest Service is likely to prvail on the merits of its defense in the lawsuit brought by the Save Our Forest Association. According to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, if the lawsuit against the Forest Service is dismissed, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation will remain committed to working with the Save Our Forest Association to protect the ecology of Strawberry Canyon, which it maintains can be done while still diverting some of the water from Strawberry Canyon to meet the tribes water needs at the Arrowhead Springs Hotel.
The hearing before Judge Bernal is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Monday March 9 in Courtroom 1 at the United States District Court for the Central District of California – Eastern Division in Riverside.

SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): WILLIAM E McCREE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED.
Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): TAMIYA AYELEYABRAMS AFRIFA
CASE NUMBER FAMSB2507100
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgment is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
351 N ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
TAMIYA AYELEYABRAMS AFRIFA
16907 ORANGEWAY #208
FONTANA, CA 92335
(909) 676-7309
Filed: OCTOBER 20, 2025 by Daisy Albiter, Deputy clerk (Asistente) for Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
STANDARD FAMILY LAW RESTRAINING ORDERS Starting immediately, you and your spouse or domestic partner are restrained from: 1. removing the minor children of the parties from the state or applying for a new or replacement passport for those minor children without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of the court; 2. cashing, borrowing against, canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage, including life, health, automobile, and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and their minor children; 3. transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life; and 4. creating a nonprobate transfer or modifying a nonprobate transfer in a manner that affects the disposition of property subject to the transfer, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court. Before revocation of a nonprobate transfer can take effect or a right of survivorship to property can be eliminated, notice of the change must be filed and served on the other party. You must notify each other of any proposed extraordinary expenditures at least five business days prior to incurring these extraordinary expenditures and account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after these restraining orders are effective. However, you may use community property, quasi-community property, or your own separate property to pay an attorney to help you or to pay court costs.
ÓRDENES DE RESTRICCIÓN ESTÁNDAR DE DERECHO FAMILIAR
En forma inmediata, usted y su cónyuge o pareja de hecho tienen prohibido: 1. llevarse del estado de California a los hijos menores de las partes, o solicitar un pasaporte nuevo o de repuesto para los hijos menores, sin el consentimiento previo por escrito de la otra parte o sin una orden de la corte; 2. cobrar, pedir prestado, cancelar, transferir, deshacerse o cambiar el nombre de los beneficiarios de cualquier seguro u otro tipo de cobertura, como de vida, salud, vehículo y discapacidad, que tenga como beneficiario(s) a las partes y su(s) hijo(s) menor(es); 3. transferir, gravar, hipotecar, ocultar o deshacerse de cualquier manera de cualquier propiedad, inmueble o personal, ya sea comunitaria, cuasicomunitaria o separada, sin el consentimiento escrito de la otra parte o una orden de la corte, excepto en el curso habitual de actividades personales y comerciales o para satisfacer las necesidades de la vida; y 4. crear o modificar una transferencia no testamentaria de manera que afecte la asignación de una propiedad sujeta a transferencia, sin el consentimiento por escrito de la otra parte o una orden de la corte. Antes de que se pueda eliminar la revocación de una transferencia no testamentaria, se debe presentar ante la corte un aviso del cambio y hacer una entrega legal de dicho aviso a la otra parte. Cada parte tiene que notificar a la otra sobre cualquier gasto extraordinario propuesto por lo menos cinco días hábiles antes de realizarlo, y rendir cuenta a la corte de todos los gastos extraordinarios realizados después de que estas órdenes de restricción hayan entrado en vigencia. No obstante, puede usar propiedad comunitaria, cuasicomunitaria o suya separada para pagar a un abogado que lo ayude o para pagar los costos de la corte.
NOTICE—ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE: Do you or someone in your household need affordable health insurance? If so, you should apply for Covered California. Covered California can help reduce the cost you pay towards high quality affordable health care. For more information, visit www.coveredca.com. Or call Covered California at 1-800-300-1506
AVISO—ACCESO A SEGURO DE SALUD MÁS ECONÓMICO: ¿Necesita seguro de salud a un costo asequible, ya sea para usted o alguien en su hogar? Si es así, puede presentar una solicitud con Covered California. Covered California lo puede ayudar a reducir el costo que paga por seguro de salud asequible y de alta calidad. Para obtener más información, visite www.coveredca.com. O llame a Covered California al 1-800-300-0213
WARNING—IMPORTANT INFORMATION California law provides that, for purposes of division of property upon dissolution of a marriage or domestic partnership or upon legal separation, property acquired by the parties during marriage or domestic partnership in joint form is presumed to be community property. If either party to this action should die before the jointly held community property is divided, the language in the deed that characterizes how title is held (i.e., joint tenancy, tenants in common, or community property) will be controlling, and not the community property presumption. You should consult your attorney if you want the community property presumption to be written into the recorded title to the property.
ADVERTENCIA—IMFORMACIÓN IMPORTANTE De acuerdo a la ley de California, las propiedades adquiridas por las partes durante su matrimonio o pareja de hecho en forma conjunta se consideran propiedad comunitaria para fines de la división de bienes que ocurre cuando se produce una disolución o separación legal del matrimonio o pareja de hecho. Si cualquiera de las partes de este caso llega a fallecer antes de que se divida la propiedad comunitaria de tenencia conjunta, el destino de la misma quedará determinado por las cláusulas de la escritura correspondiente que describen su tenencia (por ej., tenencia conjunta, tenencia en común o propiedad comunitaria) y no por la presunción de propiedad comunitaria. Si quiere que la presunción comunitaria quede registrada en la escritura de la propiedad, debería consultar con un abogado.
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 13, 20 & 27 and March 6, 2026.

Continue reading →

* Legal Notices submitted for the March 6 edition received by 8 p.m. Thursday, March 5. There may be additional new notices that will appear in the Sentinel submitted the morning of March 6 before the noon deadline.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JANE ELLEN CUSHING
CASE NO. PROVA2600150
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JANE ELLEN CUSHING:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by P JANE ELLEN CUSHING in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JANE ELLEN CUSHING be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. F-1 at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2026
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner Paul D. Cushing:
Jeff W. LeBlanc – SBN 253200
Anderson & LeBlanc APLC
123 E. 9th Street, Suite 105
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 949-2226
lawoffice@andersonleblanc.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13 & 20, 2026.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB2604242
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TAWNI DANIELLE FLOT-WILLIAMS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TAWNI DANIELLE FLOT-WILLIAMS to TAWNI DANIELLE WILLIAMS
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: April 13, 2026 Time: 8:30 AM, Department: S27
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 2/27/2026
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
By Alexis Camacho, Deputy Court Clerk
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB2604252
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TRENTON LOUIS ALLMANG filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TRENTON LOUIS ALLMANG to TRENTON LOUIS ALLMANG-WILDER
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: April 13, 2026 Time: 8:30 AM, Department: S28
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 2/27/2026
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
By Alexis Camacho, Deputy Court Clerk
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB2604720
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner ELAINE CROSBY filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ELAINE CROSBY to LOVELY DAY
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: April 20, 2026 Time: 9:00 AM, Department: S23
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 3/04/2026
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
By Kaliska Montecue-Castro, Deputy Court Clerk
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260001208
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
OW WOW BALLOONS 6053 LINDA VISTA CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: ZHEN WANG
Business Mailing Address: 6053 LINDA VISTA CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ ZHEN WANG, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy K9236
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260001531
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SUNRIZE OUTLET 8673A BASELINE RD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: BASELINE EXPRESS LLC 8663 BASELINE RD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Business Mailing Address: 8663 BASELINE RD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY registered with the State of California.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 2/26/2026.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ MICHAEL A. COBB, President
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/27/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy J9535
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260000551
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
PRUDENT PSYCHIATRY NURSING CORP 2947 S VINEYARD AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761: PRUDENT PSYCHIATRY NURSING CORP 2947 S VINEYARD AVE ONTARIO, CA 91762
Business Mailing Address: 2947 S VINEYARD AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number B20250430563
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: January 13, 2026.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ FELISTA ANUGOM, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/26/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy J1808
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260000439
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
NET PARTS 19184 SANTA ANA BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316: ROARING 20’S FAMILY PIZZA PARLORS, INC. 1411 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
Business Mailing Address: 19184 SANTA ANA BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: January 2, 1976.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ GARY GROSSICH, President
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy K1583
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260001028
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
DREAM KEY 4 HOME 7544 PURPLE SAGE CIRCLE FONTANA, CA 92336: DARIO A RODRIGUEZ
Business Mailing Address: 7544 PURPLE SAGE CIRCLE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: February 10. 2026.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ DARIO RODRIGUEZ, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/10/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy K5079
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

FBN20260000860
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
K&Z HOME SWEET HOME 3390 ORGANDY LN CHINO HILLS, CA 91709: RONELLA M CARTER
Business Mailing Address: 14875 SUZANNE DR FONTANA, CA, 92337
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: January 27. 2026.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ RONELLA M CARTER, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/03/2026
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy K1583
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 6, 13, 20 & 27, 2026.

A move by four of the members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and their political support network to boost the electoral prospects of the Rancho Cucamonga councilman challenging County Treasurer Ensen Mason in this year’s election has resulted in charges and counter-charges of conflicts-of interest together with suggestions that the county’s elected officials are exhibiting inadequate diligence, dedication and focus on their duty to those who elected them.
After two unsuccessful attempts at running for the position of San Bernardino County treasurer/tax collector/auditor/controller in 2010 and 2014, Ensen Mason was elected in 2018 and reelected in 2022. This year, he is being challenged by Ryan Hutchison, who in 2018 was elected to the position of Rancho Cucamonga Third District councilman and in 2022 was returned to office by proclamation when no one ran against him.
Hutchison is a member of a coalition of San Bernardino County politicians affiliated with the current leadership of the county Republican Party and supported by the building industry, developers, the real estate profession and public employee unions representing both line and public safety workers. That coalition, which has evolved to dominate San Bernardino County politics and become what is the most widely-perceived embodiment of the leadership of the county establishment, includes San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Paul Cook, San Bernardino County Second District Supervisor Jesse Armendarez, San Bernardino County Second Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe and Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman as four of its primary members.
For a multiplicity of reasons, Cook, Armendarez, Rowe and Hagman want Mason out as treasurer/tax collector/auditor/controller, and the circumstance has grown propitious to move Hutchison in as his replacement. Hutchison has aspirations for higher office, the most immediately logical of which is Second District Supervisor, a position from which he could in future years launch what could likely prove to be a successful campaign for the state legislature – the California Assembly or the State Senate. However, because the Second District supervisorial post is currently held by Armendarez, who will not be precluded by San Bernardino County’s term limits from running for supervisor until 2034, having Hutchison glide into an elective post other than Second District supervisor is more in keeping with the coalition’s interests and long-term goals. Hutchison’s unbridled support of development proposals as a member of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, which has [antagonized] a cross section of the electorate in Rancho Cucamonga, has raised questions about his prospects for retaining his council seat in the upcoming November election.
This combination of factors resulted in Cook, Armendarez, Rowe and Hagman quietly coming to a consensus that one of the coalition’s next measure moves forward should consist of Hutchison knocking Mason out of office in the 2026 election cycle.
For more than six months, that Hutchison was going to challenge Mason in the upcoming June election, which corresponds with California’s gubernatorial primary, has been a poorly-kept secret. The coalition’s loosely-knit set of political advisors began casting about in December to find some issue that Mason or the treasurer/tax collector’s office was involved in that might be hung around Mason’s neck as some order of millstone. At some point, those strategists came up the idea of utilizing Mason’s decision, extending back to after his 2018 election, against closing out a company he had established in 2014, Mason Financial Services, as a means of bringing his service as treasurer/tax collector/auditor/controller into question.
A certified public accountant, Mason had gradually, beginning in the 1990s, built his business keeping books for companies and individuals into a successful operation. In 2014, the same year he ran for county treasurer for the second time, he branched into providing clients advice with regard to money/wealth management, offering guidance on the best may to structure and diversify investments to ensure those investing in various money markets or assets extending to stocks, bonds, mutual funds, traded funds, real estate, certificates of deposit, option, derivatives, annuities commodities or hybrids get a substantial return on their money while minimizing risk by protecting themselves through adequate diversification and caution.
Upon being elected, Mason did not shutter Mason Financial Services, but withdrew from its day-to-day operations, turning it over to a manager and his other employees, who continued to run the business out of an office on the fifth floor of the Citrus Center/Citibank building at 300 East State Street in Redlands, which has since been purchased by the City of Redlands and is set for being converted into the next Redlands City Hall. The coalition’s political operatives formulated a plan of attack.
It was Mason’s retention of his private sector financial services operation while he is serving the capacity of an elected government official that the political alliance seized upon in arriving at its plan to remove him from office and replace him with Hutchison.
The tightly-knit circle that constitutes the alliance consists of Phil Cothran, Sr, since 2021 the chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee; Heather Obernolte, the wife of Jay Obernolte, one of two Republican congressman representing San Bernardino County; Ross Sevy, a Republican Party functionary who has been active in dozens of electoral campaigns since 2014; Jim Previti, a developer and major donor to political campaigns in San Bernardino County; Benjamin Lopez, a Montclair City Councilman and the parliamentarian for San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee; Cook; Hagman, Rowe and Armendarez.
Individuals from the private sector with ties to the alliance were recruited and began making allusions, in public, to Mason’s dual private and public sector functions, implying or directly stating that they were either incompatible, in conflict or that the time Mason devoted to his financial services company detracted from, or divided, his attention to overseeing the county’s finances.
In a precisely choreographed exhibition scripted by Hutchison’s campaign team, which included Sevy, Heather Obernolte and a political consultant, four county residents/businessmen – Mark Lee, Samuel Powers, Corey Torello and Jerry Bazra – at the Tuesday February 24, 2026 San Bernardino Board of Supervisors meeting during that portion of the meeting reserved for public comments read prepared statements which variously questioned the propriety of Mason’s dual status, outright alleged he was involved in a conflict of interest or called for his removal from the elective office he holds.
Lee began the onslaught, noting that in addition to the $456,000 Mason was paid by the county in his elective capacity, he also owned Mason Financial Services, which Lee said is “valued at over a million dollars. That firm paid him over $100,000 in a year. I believe that’s double dipping. This is one of the worst cases I’ve ever heard of. I ask all of you as my representatives here this morning to do something about this as soon as possible.”
Lee opined, “This is fraud.”
Samuel Powers, who said he is “a small business owner, said “I was very bothered to learn that there’s someone at this county taking advantage of an elected position. Is it true that the owner of a private firm – Mason Financial Services – who sells investment advice to a private client is also an elected official, and not just any elected official but the treasurer of San Bernardino County? Please tell me this is not true. If it is, I consider this an abuse of power and it needs to be investigated immediately,” he said.
Corey Torello, who said he manages a large business in San Bernardino County, alluded to having earlier expressed concern with regard to Mason.
“I return today to issue a call to action to investigate potential conflicts of interest for the auditor/controller and tax collector Ensen Mason, Torello said. “Even though Mr. Mason earns over $450,000 in salary and benefits in his role at the county, he also works full time at his business, Mason Financial Services, worth more than a million dollars.”
Asserting that Mason was using his public position as “auditor, controller and tax collector to gain personal clients,” Torello said, “Mr. Mason oversees the management of the county investment pool valued at roughly $12 billion. At the same time, he profits from a business he owns giving investment advice for his personal clients. I just don’t see how this is not a conflict of interest. How can a county official conduct the same kind of work for the public and for the private sector at the same time? How do you know he’s not profiting from his public position by investing billions of dollars on behalf of the county to increase the value of the investments of his personal clients?”
Torello said, “What I want to know is how the board is safeguarding against this type of activity. He is clearly leveraging his county position when advertising for his private business. I call on you to investigate how Mr. Mason’s private business and public position may be in conflict with one another. Without an investigation into Mr. Mason’s office and the county’s financial policies how can constituents have confidence in county leadership.”
Jerry Baja said, “We have a big problem in the office of auditor/controller. It seems like the person in charge of this office has been running a financial services company at the same time they (sic) have a job in the county. I don’t believe he can properly dedicate yourself to two full-time jobs at once. More importantly it’s the fact that you should not. My question is: What are the steps that are in place to remove someone?”
Elements contained in the statements, including repetition of precisely similar wording relating to the value of Mason Financial Services and Powers, Torello and Baja omitting treasurer from Mason’s title and instead referring to him as the “auditor/controller/tax collector” gave strong indication that the statements were written by the same individual.
Moreover, Rowe, as the board chairwoman arranged to have all four – Lee, Powers, Torello and Baja – address the board as the final speakers during the public comment period, whereupon she addressed the substance of their statements by reading a written statement of her own into the record.
Under standard protocol for elected government board meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, public agency or district boards, city councils or county boards of supervisors are permitted to hear comments from members of the public relating to topics those speakers bring up extemporaneously, the board members or council members cannot dialogue with the public regarding those topics and cannot discuss matters or issues that have not been agendized. There was no item on the agenda relating to Mason’s dual private sector and public sector roles. Thus, Rowe’s statement with regard to the topic, which was clearly written ahead of time given that she read from it in her reaction to Lee’s, Powers’, Tirello’s and Baja’s statements, was an indication she was prepared to speak on the issue in advance of the meeting. Moreover, that her prepared remarks corresponded so uniformly with what was read by Lee, Powers, Tirello and Baja strongly suggests that the statements were coordinated in advance and quite possibly or probably written by the same individual, believed by many observers to be Hutichson’s campaign consultant.
Reading from the prepared text contained in a document on the table before her, Rowe said, “We’ve heard some new comments. I’ve had a lot of outreach both this morning and via email from folks regarding the conflict of interest associated with the auditor controller tax collector and the concerns that are being raised. Ensen Mason, despite being the highest paid elected official in the county is not in his elected office full time because he operates a full-time business, Mason Financial Services. So, Ensen’s a CPA and a registered investment advisor, and in that role, he frequently provides advice to his clients on investments that they should make. At the same time, Ensen serves as the elected auditor controller tax collector for our county and in his role as the treasurer, he directly manages $12 billion in the county investment pool So, this creates an opportunity for significant conflict of interest.”
Changing her posture and angling herself accordingly to address County Chief Executive Officer Luther Snoke, who was seated to her left at the far end of the board dais next to County Counsel Laura Feingold, Rowe continued to read from the prepared statement, asking, “Is there any way you can investigate to see if this is a real conflict of interest or just a perceived conflict of interest? Because I agree with the speakers and the outreach that I’ve had that if nothing else, it’s a bad look. [As a] board, we delegate our investment authority each year through the budgeting process. I’m concerned that until we have a better understanding of the allegations, that we may want to explore what other options that we have for delegation. So, would you be able to look into that and report back?”
Snoke’s response came across as pre-rehearsed if not scripted as well, as he appeared to be glancing at the  screen of an open laptop computer in front of him.
“Yes,” Snoke said, “and to echo your point, I’ve heard the complaints, too. Yes, I can work with county counsel. We’ll look into how we would investigate the concerns raised regarding the potential conflict of interest. From the standpoint of investment authority, annually an item is brought where we recommend to the board delegated investment authority to the ATC [auditor treasurer controller]. I think that is around budget time. June or July each year is when we traditionally bring that.”
In a remark that ominously seemed to foretell that the county board of supervisors and top county administrators were looking to bring Mason down a peg or two before the upcoming election by attenuating the scope of his financial authority, Snoke said, “I can explore what it would mean if a recommendation was to delegate the investment authority differently and what the implications that would have on the county.”
Armendarez, the individual on the board of supervisors most closely aligned with Hutchison jumped in at that point, ruminating out loud, in the strongest of terms, about publicly rebuking Mason.
“Madam chair, we do hear you,” Armendarez said. “We hear everything you’re saying. When it comes to this particular subject that we’re talking right now, where I see there could be a huge issue that I would love to see if we could look into is when you’re managing $12 billion, that gives you a lot of influence in what you can do with your own personal business. And I would hate to see that these monies are being leveraged in any way from the county side to benefit someone’s personal business. If that’s the case, we need to get the bottom of it. I don’t know if there’s a way to audit that in itself, because if he’s – I don’t know it it’s called insider trading or something, but if there’s something like that that’s happening – that could be not just devastating to the county but it could be devastating to our reputation as a county.”
Rowe then really rubbed it in, analogizing the situation in stark terms, saying, “One of the comments I received was its the equivalent of having the sheriff’s department, the actual sheriff, the elected sheriff have his own private towing company where he hooks up and hauls vehicles and makes a profit off that or DA [District Attorney Jason] Anderson having a private practice on the side at the same time.”
She addressed Snoke and Feingold, “So, I think anything you can do to shed some light on it would be helpful.”
The events at the February 24 board meeting came in the midst of the February 9 to March 6 filing period for candidates, serving as a well-timed springboard for Hutchison’s candidacy and campaign kick-off. Headlines heralding that Mason was being investigated by the county appeared the next day in both of the county’s largest circulating daily newspapers, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Bernardino Sun.
Mason responded, pointing out that he had been assailed by a mixture inaccuracies, quarter-truths-half-truths and three-quarter-truths held together with what were at best misinterpretations and worse outright and intentional misrepresentations.
There is no restriction whatsoever on elected officials owning businesses in the private sector, he pointed out. This is currently the case, with other elected officials in San Bernardino County, including those who called upon the chief executive officer and county counsel to investigate him. Larry Walker, who was the incumbent county treasurer/tax collector/auditor/controller against whom he ran in 2010 and 2014, was a member of the California Bar and a practicing attorney.
Both Torello and Baja described Mason as a full-time employee at Mason Financial Services, which was repeated by Rowe. That is inaccurate, Mason said. “I employ a manager and employees,” he said of Mason Financial Services. I do not work out of that [the Redlands Mason Financial Services] office during normal business hours. If the question is how much time am I spending in my role as county treasurer, as the tax collector and as the auditor-controller, the taxpayers are getting better than a 40-hour work week out of me. There is no dispute about that. It can be verified in all the ways that exist these days, on video, electronically, through global positioning network data and probably in some ways I don’t know about.”
Mason dismissed entirely the suggestion that the investment advice provided to Mason Financial Services’ clients  involved any type of conflict of interest.
The county’s portfolio is loaded with extremely low-risk instruments which offer safe and reliable, steady growth, the lion’s share of which are U.S. Treasury bonds. Private investors, such as those who employ Mason Financial Services, are heavily involved in stock trading. “The county holds no stock,” he said. “There is no conflict of interest. The investment the county is engaged in does not touch on any of the activity of Mason Financial Services’ clients.”
Where the conflict comes in, Mason said, is on the other side of the equation. It is actually the board of supervisors’ conflict that has led to this circumstance, he said. That conflict arises out of an effort begun in 2021by the union representing the county’s sheriff’s deputies, the Safety Employees Benefit Association, known by its acronym SEBA, to create a medical care trust for retired deputies. The county’s deputies and higher ranking officers already receive a pension – calculated at 3 percent of each retired deputy’s/officer’s highest annual salary times the number of years the deputy/officer was employed by the department. Those pensions are paid through the county’s retirement system, SBCERA – the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement System. What the Safety Employees Benefit Association was attempting to do was to create what is known as an other postemployment benefit, referred to by the acronym OPEB, which would pay for health plans for those retired sheriff’s department employees in addition to their pensions.
The board of supervisors, all of whom have received substantial political contributions from SEBA and who were also endorsed by the deputies’ union in their run for office, were in favor of simply approving the creation of the OPEB. In gearing up to approve the other postemployment benefit for the Safety Employees Benefit Association, the board of supervisors made no arrangement for funding the program, deferring into the future the provision of money that would be used to pay for the health insurance the retired sheriff’s deputies/officers were to receive. This meant that ultimately the money to pay for the medical care trust program, instead of being defrayed by contributions from deputies/officers who were still working, would come out of the county’s general operating budget or the county’s financial reserves.
Mason, in looking to what the proposal would entail, the projections of what it would cost and what funding at that time was available and what future funding was projected to become available, calculated the creation of the program would create what would amount to a liability, i.e., debt of over $1 billion that the county would be saddled with in the future. Mason informed then-County Executive Officer Leonard Hernandez and Assistant County Executive Officer Diane Rundles, who oversaw the county’s human resources division, that he believed the requirements of his job as county treasurer/tax collector/auditor/controller required, at the very least, that he make a report, entailing a full public disclosure of that future debt/liability prior to the board of supervisors consideration of the approval of the creation of the medical trust program for retired deputies/officers. This greatly complicated the proposal to approve the program, making it impossible for the board of supervisors to simply rubberstamp it.
His insistence on making a report of the liabilities of the program and its financial consequences prevented the creation of the OPEB and resulted in SEBA and its members perceiving the board of supervisors as having double-crossed them by not rewarding the deputies with the creation of the medical care trust program to benefit them in return for the hefty political contributions the deputies’ union had made to the supervisors to assist in their election campaigns. In fact, Mason said, what the board of supervisors was attempting to do with the postretirement medical care trust program for the county’s sheriff’s employees involved the supervisors in a classic quid-pro-quo – a kickback, a payoff, bribery, corruption – a conflict of interest of the first order. It is for that reason, Mason maintains, that the board of supervisors is orchestrating the false charges of a conflict of interest against him and is moving forward with an investigation, which will create, the supervisors hope, enough negative publicity regarding him that it will boost Hutchison’s electoral chances and result in Mason’s defeat in this year’s election.
“That is the real conflict of interest at the root of all of this,” Mason said. “The county supervisors want to get their  own treasurer into office who will allow them to make a billion dollar gift to the sheriff’s deputies union, which is one their biggest political donors across the board. They want a treasurer who will keep his mouth shut about the corruption their up to their necks in.”
Mason says he does not see the outside employment that three of the members of the board of supervisors who coming after him are themselves engaged in as being an issue.
“An elected official owning a business is not against the law,” he said.
Nevertheless, there are others that now see some kind of political paydirt in the fact that at least forur members of the board of supervisors are suggesting that there is something either illegal or unethical in elected officials having their own interests in the private sector.
The question has now become, insofar as the board of supervisors is calling for an investigation into and potential action with regard to Ensen Mason’s outside employment/business, which some such as Lee, Powers, Torello and Baja apparently believe is overdue, whether the board will turn its scrutiny upon its own members, who own enterprises which appear in some cases to be lucrative, time-consuming and potentially conflict-ridden.
In the case of Second District Supervisor Jesse Armendarez, he is a principal in JA & JB Investment, Inc., from which, according to financial disclosure documents filed with the State of California, he realizes income of between $100,000 and $1 million per year. Armendarez is also the owner of Sierra Realty, from which he obtains, on an annual basis, according to documents filed with the State of California, between $100,000 and $1 million in income. In addition, according documentation, Armendarez has investments in or interest in at least six separate pieces of property, each of which is worth between $100,000 and $1 million.
The scope of Armendarez’s business activity is such that it would likely intrude upon the time he can devote, during any given week, to looking after the interests of his constituents.
At the same time, Armendarez’s interests in real estate would, at least potentially, involve him in conflicts of interest vis-à-vis his function as county supervisor. A fair number of issues that come before the board of supervisors involve land use decisions, including the development of property, sometimes making zone changes, granting conditional use permits and sometimes approving changes to the county’s general plan. In addition, as a member of the board of supervisors, Armendarez has a hand in setting the standards in and approving overall the county’s general plan on those occasions when it is updated or revamped. All of these activities and decisions, falling within the rubric of their various impacts on real estate in circumscribed, limited, larger and regional contexts would directly or indirectly relate to the decrease, sustainment or increase in the value of his own real estate creating a de facto conflict of interest. On Tuesday, February 24 Armendarez said of Mason that his control or decisions with regard to investing county money gave him “a lot of influence in what [he] can do with [his] own personal business” and that he would “hate to see that these monies are being leveraged in any way from the county side to benefit someone’s personal business.” Armendarez referenced “insider trading… that could be not just devastating to the county but it could be devastating to our reputation as a county.”
It was not lost on at least some observers, that as a supervisor Armendarez’s influence over land use decisions has an impact on what he might be able to do with his own personal property and that his authority puts him into a position where is able to engage in a type of insider trading.
State disclosure documents indicated that Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe is involved in an undertaking in Temecula, which is in adjoining Riverside County known as Hammerking Productions in which se serves as the “King of the Hammers” and as a liaison representative to the Bureau of Land Management. According to those documents, Hammerking Production is not generating any money at present.
Rowe is also involved with or owns D Webb, Inc. in Yucca Valley, which se reported as being engaged in “development.” She reported she derives somewhere between $10,000 and $100,000 in income annually from D. Webb.
Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman is employed as the “territory sales representative for Snap One, LLC., a company based in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is a “designer, manufacturer, and distributor of smart home and business solutions. He makes roughly $10,000 year working for Snap One. He is also an owner of Genuine Technologies, a venture in which he makes roughly $150,000 per year. He is also the owner/president of Apex Bail Bonds, from which he derives roughly $350,000 in income. Apex involves itself, at least occasionally, in seeing to it that those arrested, in some cases by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, on suspicion of violating the law in San Bernardino County, are set free pending their trials. As a member of the board of supervisors, Hagman is one of five individuals who control the purse strings of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Some might consider that a conflict of interest.
The members of the board of supervisors are somewhat secretive about the business entities they own. Generally, they offer as little information as possible with regard to those companies and their activities, rarely going beyond the minimum disclosure required for the completion of registering filings.
Some members of the San Bernardino County Republican establishment unaffiliated with the Cook/Hagman/Rowe/Armendarez/Hutchison/Cothran/Obernolte/Previti/Lopez alliance beyond GOP registration and involvement in the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee expressed dismay at the manner in which the Mason, himself a Republican, was being undercut by members of his own party. Among those skeptical of the motivation in seeking to end Mason’s tenure as county treasurer are current and former members of the California legislature, mayors and city/town council members. A common refrain was discontent with the manner in which the current crop of Republican officeholders within the county are kowtowing to public employee union demands without regard to the fiscal impact on government operations, both in terms of expense to the taxpayers and the diminishing services to the public increases in government employee salary and benefit costs.
Early this morning, the Sentinel emailed county spokesman David Wert, asking him if Mason was wrong when he stated that elected county officials are at liberty to own businesses outside the scope of their county offices and, if Mason is wrong, whether that principle applies to the members of the board of supervisors, as well. The Sentinel further asked Wert if the board of supervisors should open up an investigation of any of its members involved in employment outside the county and if the  board of supervisors is going to open up an investigation of its members who have some form of employment outside of the county or own a business.
The Sentinel asked Wert if the board of supervisors is pursuing the investigation of Mason to punish him for attempting to block the SEBA post-retirement medical coverage program.
The Sentinel asked Wert if the board of supervisors is pursuing the investigation of Mr. Mason to diminish his chances of being reelected this year.
The Sentinel asked Wert if SEBA’s political donations to the members of the board of supervisors created a conflict of interest that should have resulted in the board members recusing themselves when the decisions with regard to the SEBA post-retirement medical coverage program were made.
Wert had not responded by press time.

More than three months ago, Ontario’s mayor and city council voted to spend $1,255,000 in city funds to place two ballot initiatives before the city’s voters.
Thus, on March 24, Ontario’s residents will have the opportunity to vote yes or no on two ballot measures, Measure V and Measure W.
Despite spending more than one-and-a-quarter-million dollars to hold that special election, the mayor and all four members of the council are in agreement: the city’s residents should reject both Measure V and Measure W.
Both measures pertain to hotels and motels, what is also referred to as the “hospitality industry” in Ontario. The were forced on the city by Unite Here Local 11, a union representing those who work in hotels throughout Southern California. The members of the city council expressed the view that the measures will increase costs borne by those who stay at motels and hotels in the city and will hurt the efforts City Hall is making to build Ontario into a convention magnet, attracting thousands of outside businesses to the city temporarily and thus boosting the economy.
Measure V calls for creating a local minimum wage for hospitality workers that would rise to $30 an hour by 2030, and build in other regulations for industry workers.
Measure W would require voter approval for major hotel and event center projects.
The Ontario City Council approved the special election to be held March 24 at a cost of $1.255 million at its December 16 meeting. That decision was preceded and then followed by a series of complicating events. Continue reading →

In an intriguing but perhaps not entirely unexpected turnaround, the Yucaipa City Council on Monday February 23 moved toward the forefront of resistance to the State of California’s usurpation of local land-use authority.
The action was an attempt to put the brakes on what might otherwise prove to be a develop frenzy that virtually all elements of the building industry view in a positive light. Of note is that just three years ago, pro-development forces, acting independently of state officials and utilizing three of the members of the Yucaipa City Council, staged a coup which removed the city’s long-time city manager, whose controlled growth approach to municipal governance had prevented Yucaipa, the seventh smallest geographically of the county’s 24 municipalities, from being subjected to unbridled urbanization. Those events resulted in the most chaotic and disruptive chapter in Yucaipa’s 37 years as an incorporated city, including the recall of one of the councilmen. the decision by another to retire from politics and the virtual destruction of a third councilman’s reputation.
Now, roughly a half decade after the governor and state legislature initiated an historic effort to override local control with regard to the intensity and quality of development that takes place in California to encourage the construction of housing to accommodate the state’s burgeoning population, bring down the skyrocketing cost of housing and alleviate the growing phenomenon of homelessness, the Yucaipa City Council as it is now composed has come around to the position a handful of cities in San Bernardino County and three or four dozen from around the state assumed four and five years ago when they stood up to state officials and enunciated their conviction that loosening planning and development standards would not cure the housing shortage as much as it would create neighborhoods that are far less livable than they have been throughout the California’s first 170 years as a state. The vast majority of those cities have now given up the fight, unwilling to pay the price of resistance, which consists of Sacramento applying the leverage it possesses, which includes not only expensive litigation in state courts in which the judges are state employees but being subjected to the state withholding funding. It remains to be seen whether Yucaipa will be able to fare any better than those who valiantly crossed swords with the state. Continue reading →

Between February 16 and 22, investigators from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s – gangs and narcotic division, along with deputies from patrol stations and personnel from partnering agencies, served nine search warrants and contacted criminal suspects throughout the county. Additionally, the department’s street crime enforcement team’s San Bernardino Movement Against Street Hoodlums (SMASH) detail conducted proactive patrols in the High Desert and surrounding jurisdictions.
Over the one-week period, investigators contacted gang members and people prohibited from possessing firearms. During their investigations, 11 firearms were seized. Investigators made 10 felony arrests and one misdemeanor arrest during the operational period.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors authorized funds for countywide crime suppression. The intent is to provide additional funding to the Sheriff’s Department, allowing for increased law enforcement services related to quality-of-life issues affecting the communities in our county.
Operation Consequences will focus on conducting targeted crime suppression operations in the High Desert and the Sheriff’s jurisdiction surrounding the city of San Bernardino. The operation will include personnel from the Sheriff’s Gangs/Narcotics Division, Specialized Enforcement Division, patrol stations, California Highway Patrol, San Bernardino Police Department, San Bernardino County Probation and Department of Homeland Security Investigations. Operation Consequences will take place over the next several months to curb violent crime, disrupt and dismantle targeted criminal street gangs, and locate and arrest criminals who are illegally possessing, manufacturing and trafficking firearms.  Continue reading →

The Victorville City Council next week will consider removing Derek Marshall from his position as a member of the planning commission, based on a request from Councilman Robert Harriman that Marshall be relieved of that honorific.
At the February 17 Victorville City Council meeting, Harriman cited Marshall’s participation as a self-appointed chaperon during a student walkout at Victor Valley High School on February 13. That action, in which the students left class and the school campus as a protest/demonstration against what those students and their representatives said in overreach by the federal Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was not authorized by the school district and constituted what the Victor Valley School District maintains constituted mass truancy.
During that portion of the February 17 meeting reserved for council members to suggest items to be considered by the council at future meetings, Harriman said, “This last Friday, one of our planning commissioners was observed participating in a school walkout that began at Victor Valley High school and then ended here at City Hall. The walkout was in protest to the federal immigration and customs enforcement, also known as ICE. Our planning commissioner, Mr. Derek Marshall is an appointed local public official, and his participation in this type of activity communicates a disregard for our local governance structure we as a city council have supported. Therefore, I would like to ask that the council consider for discussion and possible action an item be placed on the agenda for the next city council meeting where we consider removal of Mr. Derek Marshall from the planning commission.” Continue reading →

The musicians of the Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band and the Ovitt Family are proud to present a program entitled “Boots, Spurs, & Dolly” on Monday, March 16, 2026 at 7:30 p.m.
The concert will be held in Gardiner W. Spring Auditorium, located on the campus of Chaffey High School at 1245 North Euclid Ave. in Ontario. The Woodwind Celebration Ensemble will present a pre-concert recital in the auditorium lobby at 7:00 p.m. Complimentary coffee and cookies will be served in the lobby prior to the concert. The performance is free to the public.
The concert will present an evening of country and western music. The Show Band is excited to have two guest performers return to our stage, Kim Eberhardt and Bob Morley. Also featured will be Show Band musician and vocalist John Holguin, along with the musicians of the Show Band.
Kim Eberhardt, who sings and talks like Dolly Parton, is an accomplished artist. She performs country legend Parton’s hits with panache. Kim’s love of Dolly Parton began young, early in her performing life, and was only enriched when she was cast as the Dolly Parton role in the stage musical 9 to 5. Kim says about her tribute performances, “This show is my love letter to Dolly. She is a national treasure!” Kim will perform four of Dolly Paton’s greatest hits, Here You Come Again, Jolene, 9 to 5, and I Will Always Love You.
Bob Morley started performing when he was in the sixth grade. At 14, he started his own rock-and-roll band at the birth of the genre in the 50’s. He traveled nationally as a solo performer, with a gospel quartet, and later with a folk trio, performing in every state and a half dozen foreign countries. Most of Bob’s musical talent, however, has been directed toward the ministry of the Church. Bob is an ordained United Methodist minister, having served churches in Southern California and Hawaii over his 45-year career. Bob will sing Help Me Make It Through the Night, Mama, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys, and The Gambler.
In addition to playing his trumpet, John Holguin will sing Garth Brooks’ song If Tomorrow Never Comes and Johnny Cash’s Folson Prison Blues. The Show Band will be featured on a medley of country songs that will open the show, and “A Salute to Glen Campbell,” a tribute to the late, great singer and guitarist.
If you are country music aficionado, you will not want tot miss these performances.
All are invited to enjoy a night of country music, and their family and friends, as well.
Those who wish to can support the Show Band by visiting and feeding the Hungry Tuba located in the lobby.
The concert will be broadcast on local Ontario cable Channel 3. Check your cable listings for the date and time.
The Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band was founded in 1985 by R. Jack Mercer and is now under the direction of Mr. Patrick Arnold and assistant directors David Schaafsma and David Grasmick. Band members represent at least two dozen communities throughout Southern California. Adult musicians and students are invited to participate. Rehearsals are held on Monday evenings from 7 to 9:00 p.m. at the Chaffey High School Jack Mercer Band Room. The band performs monthly concerts on the campus of Chaffey High School as well as at other venues throughout the community. All performances are free to the public. Continue reading →