This article deals with the controversy over water use and the efforts involving multiple entities, including the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and the Indian Wells Valley Water District to arrive at an affordable water replenishment plan in the northwest tip of the Mojave Desert.

An engrossing and equally rare dispute between two bureaucracies in which one is a primary constituent of the other is playing out in that region of California comprising the northwestern corner of San Bernardino County.
The issue of contention is water. It is a given that the cost of delivering the elixir of life to the furthest extension of the Mojave Desert is rising and will continue to do so. The larger question is whether agricultural production and industrial activity will need to end in the region. The controversy over the theft of water from Eastern Sierras has begun anew, as the long history of water disputes has opened a new chapter. Started in the early 1900’s when the fledgling Los Angeles Department of Water and Power “bought borrowed and stole” the majority of water rights in Inyo and Mono Counties triggering a series of water wars over the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct which exports water to Los Angeles to this day.
More recently, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (AGMA) of 2014 brought with it the cataloging of the Indian Wells Valley as one of 21 groundwater basins in the state to be classified as being in critical overdraft, another 127 basins have been classified as high priority. These designations triggered the creation of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (Groundwater Authority) and approximately 266 similar Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in its efforts to overcome the depletion of California’s groundwater basins. Continue reading →

The jousting between the Donald Trump Administration and California’s political leadership over immigration law enforcement has resulted in troops from the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base being dispatched across the Southland as “peacekeepers” to prevent protesters from interfering with federal agents’ roundup of illegal migrants.
The use of the U.S. military in this way was not a second or even third option, but rather the administration’s fourth choice in how to ensure that “Operation Alta California” can proceed according to the current federal government’s stated intention of remove an estimated 2.2 million people who are in the Golden State illegally.
As of Tuesday, according to the United States Marine Corps, 719 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines stationed at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms were deployed to specific locations in Los Angeles San Bernardino and Orange counties, with the lion’s share – well over 600 – in Los Angeles County. Their mission, according to the U.S. Northern Command, calls for them to engage in “protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.”
The Donald Trump Administration previously intended to initiate on April 10 Operation Alta California in what was to be for a period of three to four weeks the limited arenas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
That plan fell through, though, when Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus gave indication that they would not permit the deputies from their departments to serve in a facilitating capacity in assisting the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in rounding up an estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants in both counties. The administration’s hope had been that once its success in dealing with the illegal immigration issue was established in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the fourth and fifth largest counties in the state, respectively, populationwise, that it would be able to induce law enforcement agencies elsewhere to lend it a hand in aggressive operations. Because Bianco and Dicus had gotten cold feet, Operation Alta California was postponed for more than seven weeks, until June 2, and its focus was moved to Los Angeles County, with its epicenter being the City of Los Angeles. Continue reading →

Whether the City of San Bernardino’s residents and taxpayers will be spared the expense of having to pay for its immediate past mayor’s failed effort to use the power of his office to construct a political machine will depend on the how rapidly the lawyer representing the city in a lawsuit brought against it by Valdivia’s one-time chief of staff can come up to speed with regard to the depredations virtually all of those in Valdivia’s political orbit were engaged in.
Valdivia’s political career kicked off with his failed 2009 run for Fourth Ward Councilman followed by his successful challenge of Third Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker in 2011. That was followed by his aborted run for Congress in California’s 31st Congressional District in 2014, his uncontested reelection as 3rd Ward Councilman in 2015, his successful run for mayor in 2018, his never-fully gestated run for Fifth District San Bernardino County supervisor in 2020 and his defeat in his run for reelection as mayor in 2022. Throughout the successful phase of his time as a politician, he tapped into the support of public employee unions, which bankrolled his campaigns in 2011 and 2018, and padded his political war chest in 2015 to the point that no one was willing to run against him.
Key to his rise as an elected official was political consultant Chris Jones, who was associated with both the firefighters’ union and police officers’ union, which made hefty contributions to those politicians in San Bernardino who prioritized paying police officers and firefighters top dollar salaries and providing them with generous benefits. Those unions simultaneously threw money into attack campaigns against any politicians who dwelled upon how the city’s deteriorating financial position was a consequence of its generosity to the city’s employees. Continue reading →

The murder of Dan Menard and his wife Sephanie turns out to have been one for the books.
From the time it stormed its way into the public’s collective consciousness last summer, the case was filled with curiosities, questions and anomalies. Some, but not all of the questions have been answered. In numerous ways, the curiosities and anomalies persist with greater intensity than before.
Initially, in late August, the Menards, an older couple who led by that point had been leading a relatively staid and predictable existence, albeit in unconventional surroundings, garnered attention because they simply were not where they were supposed to be – at home with their Shih Tzu, Cuddles,.
Stephanie, 73, was suffering from muscular dystrophy and had limited mobility, needing to walk with a cane or a walker. Dan was in the middle stage of dementia. It is unclear how it was that they had taken up residence at Olive Dell Ranch in Colton’s rustic Reche Canyon in 2009, when Dan was 64 and Stephanie was 58 and already somewhat set in their way. Olive Dell Ranch lies along vast San Bernardino County’s frontier with Riverside County. While there’s no definitive evidence to prove that wife swapping occurs at Olive Dell Ranch, three is no question that it is a nudist resort. It is billed as a venue for RV camping and tent camping. Cabins can be rented there on a short-term basis rentals on a short-m basis. Children are not permitted on the premises. That the Menards were living in the midst of what many presumed was a “liberated” lifestyle jarred, at least in the conventional sense, with their more traditional orientation, which included Sunday participation in church service, which they attended, it seemed, every week.
So, when the Menards weren’t present when a friend arrived on Sunday morning August 25 to drive them to church, this seemed odd. Continue reading →

By Richard Hernandez
In the recently intensified tension between the Donald Trump Administration and advocates of the undocumented immigrant community and the Democratic Party-dominated political establishment in Sacramento that backs them, San Bernardino County law enforcement this week doubled down on its decision to side with the later.
That decision comes roughly two-and-a-half months after the Republican-affiliated political and law enforcement leadership in San Bernardino County made an abrupt and unexpected left turn, undercut the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, all follow-on agencies to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Office in its plans to initiate the Trump Administration’s Operation Alta California in San Bernardino and Riverside counties in April. Instead of federal officials going forth with Operation Alta California as had been planned, they held off for nearly two months and began the roundups of illegal aliens in earnest on June 2, doing so not in the more conservative, Republican-dominated areas of the state but rather in the Democratic stronghold and heartland of the influx of unregistered migrants into California, Los Angeles. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it and other federal agents arrested 4,635 individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally or under false pretenses in the 48 hour period of Tuesday and Wednesday, June 3 and 4. The lion’s share of this activity took place in Los Angeles County, indeed, within the City of Los Angeles. ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was only marginally active in San Bernardino County.
There were immediate reactions to the stepped-up immigration law enforcement, most notably in those areas where Operation Alta California was conspicuously taking place, in the form of widespread protests. Those protests manifested spontaneously, or so it seemed, at the locations where the ICE raids were taking place, the garment district and other industrial warehouses near downtown Los Angeles in the initial phase of operation Alta California, as well as around federal buildings and facilities. It would later be discovered that the protestors were using a sophisticated monitoring and communications network in an effort to check the federal authorities. Continue reading →

A man from Rialto and another from Upland were among seven criminals who pulled off the what is believed to be the largest jewelry theft and armored car robbery in U.S. history, it was revealed this week.
Both of the thieves from San Bernardino County are in custody as is one of the others. Four remain at large.
The heist took place in Lebec just off the I-5 Freeway, 72 miles north of Los Angeles a little less than three years ago after the gang trailed an armored truck carrying valuables that had been on display during an international jewelry trade show in the San Francisco Bay Area.
On June 11, a federal indictment was returned naming seven defendants, those being:
• Carlos Victor Mestanza Cercado, 31, of Pasadena;
• Jazael Padilla Resto, a.k.a. “Ricardo Noel Moya,” “Ricardo Barbosa,” and “Alberto Javier Loza Chamorro,” 36, of Boyle Heights
• Pablo Raul Lugo Larroig, a.k.a. “Walter Loza,” 41, of Rialto;
• Victor Hugo Valencia Solorzano, 60, of the Rampart Village neighborhood of Los Angeles;
• Jorge Enrique Alban, 33, of South Los Angeles;
• Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores, 42, of Upland; and
• Eduardo Macias Ibarra, 36, of the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles.
Continue reading →

This article involves medical issues

This article deals with issues in the mountains

SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): ERNESTO GODOY
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): MADAI ROMERO
CASE NUMBER FAMMB2500070
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.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] Respondent has [have] been a resident of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
3. STATISTICAL FACTS
(1) Date of marriage: April 16, 2001
(2) Date of Separation: May 1, 2002
(3) Time from date of marriage until time of separation: 1 years and months
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: (1) irreconcilable differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to award support to Petitioner [and] Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: Confirm as separate property the assets and debts in
2004 BMW X-5 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO CHECKING ACCT NO. 5611 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO SAVINGS ACCT NO 8754 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO CREDIT CARD NO. 5032 as to the PETITIONER
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
Signed: Madai Romero 2-24-25
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOSHUA TREE DISTRICT
6527 WHITE FEATHER ROAD
JOSHUA TREE, CA 92252
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):
STACY ALBELAIS ESQUIRE STATE BAR # 256154
LAW OFFICES OF STACY ALBELAIS
4505 ALL STATE DR. SUITE 204
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(951) 686-8662
stacy@familylawforyou.com
Filed: FEBRUARY 24, 2025 by Anabel Z. Romero, Deputy clerk (Asistente) for Aimee Eubanks, Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on May 30, and June 6, 13 & 20, 2025.

Continue reading →