(July 5) A decision that will have momentous impact on both the outward aesthetics as well as property values in the heart of upscale Chino Hills could be rendered as early as next Thursday when the California Public Utilities Commission meets in San Francisco.
On July 11, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will take up the issue of whether a 3.5 mile-long span of the roughly five mile portion of the electrical transmission line for Southern California Edison’s Tehachapi renewable energy project that runs through Chino Hills will be placed underground or whether the cable capable of carrying 500 kilovolts of electricity will be strung from a series of 197-foot high towers, 18 of which have already been erected in the city.
The PUC, which in 2009 over the city of Chino Hills’ protest granted Southern California Edison clearance to erect high-tension power transmission towers through the 44.7-square mile city at the extreme southwest corner of San Bernardino County along a long-existing power corridor easement owned by the utility, was persuaded in 2012 to reconsider that decision after city officials importuned PUC Chairman Michael Peevey to visit Chino Hills and witness firsthand the impact of the towers on the community.
The PUC ordered Southern California Edison, which had already expended millions of dollars in erecting the transmission towers within the Chino Hills city limits, to consider bringing the towers down and examine the  possibility of burying  the transmission lines  beneath the power corridor running through Chino Hills.
The 173-mile Tehachapi line is intended to connect what is planned as the world’s largest windfarm, consisting of hundreds of electricity-producing windmills in Kern County, with the Los Angeles metropolitan basin.
After the California Public Utilities Commission gave Southern California Edison initial approval for the project and its means of conveyance, the Chino Hills City Council authorized what has to date resulted in the expenditure of $4.4 million to employ attorneys and make other efforts to contest the Public Utility Commission’s action, including filing suit against Southern California Edison, alleging the company had “overburdened” the power line easements. That legal effort failed when West Valley Superior Court Judge Keith D. Davis ruled the California Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction regarding the route used by Edison, and the suit was thrown out. Chino Hills appealed Davis’s ruling to the 4th District Court of Appeal, asserting the city had the right to have the case heard by a jury, but in September 2011 the appeals court affirmed Davis’ decision.
The last ditch gambit by Chino Hills to appeal to Peevey in 2011 succeeded in bringing about in November of that year what would at least prove to be a temporary halt to the towers’ construction while a potential undergrounding alternative is explored
But that  halt also forced a delay in the overall project, known as the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, and state energy officials made clear that Chino Hills and other advocates of the undergrounding would need to utilize the respite in the construction to work with Edison to find a mechanism for defraying the increased cost the undergrounding would represent. With the deadline just days away, it appears the opportunity to forge a cost sharing alliance between the community and the utility has been squandered, significantly increasing the prospect that the PUC will allow Edison to proceed with the project as originally approved.
Southern California Edison has made clear all along that it would prefer to leave the power lines above ground. Nevertheless, it complied with the PUC’s request that it gather information, engineering and financial data, and testimony from involved and uninvolved but informed parties in order to arrive at a decision on whether undergrounding the cables is a viable alternative to leaving the line overhead through  Chino Hills. The decision that is likely to come next Thursday will come down to whether a majority of the members of the PUC board can be convinced that the burden the towers impose on the community of Chino Hills outweighs the complication, interruption, expense, and potential further delay that undergrounding effort will represent to Edison’s effort to complete the project.
While undergrounding advocates passionately maintained that burying the cables in the Chino Hills community was a superior option, they have risked the PUC’s rejection of their position by failing to prepare or outline a convincing cost-sharing plan toward that end which would have those directly benefited by the undergrounding bear a portion of its cost.
Undergrounding advocates have accused Southern California Edison of inflating the cost estimates for the undergrounding project. The undergrounding advocates have likewise been accused of underestimating the cost.
Last December, Edison submitted cost estimates for various undergrounding alternatives that ranged from $486 million to $807 million. Edison previously maintained the cost of trenching out a six-foot wide and six-foot deep, 3.5-mile long swath through town and undergrounding a single line would be $300 million to $473 million, and undergrounding a double-circuit line to be $703 million to $1 billion. Edison claims it could erect the towers along the same span and string the cables between them for an estimated $172 million.
Some of those calling for the burial of the lines maintain the job could be done competently for as little as $147 million. Southern California Edison, operating from a position of strength by virtue of its decades of experience in laying and stringing electrical lines, has cited its assessment of the technical and financial challenges associated with the project and the PUC has accepted those estimates as realistic ones.
Administrative Law Judge Jean Vieth, who was designated as the arbiter of still-remaining issues between the utility company and the city and its undergrounding advocates, concluded, “Using Chino Hills’ own summary of the major cost categories and the differences between the parties’ estimates, and evaluating the record developed on those cost items, we conclude that $147 million is not a credible estimate for the undergrounding. The actual cost, before offset for the reasonable value of Chino Hills’ real property contribution, which we have not determined, would approximate either $268 million or $296 million.
The city of Chino Hills made what PUC staff referred to as a “token” effort to share in the undergrounding cost, asserting it would participate by providing as much as $76.7 million to mitigate Southern California Edison’s undergrounding costs, including providing 69.97 acres of real property needed for the construction of the underground transmission line which the city is prepared to convey to SCE in fee; future  revenue which the city would have derived which will now be available to SCE through ownership of such properties; increased expenses that the city will incur due to its loss of the use of the contributed properties; and costs associated with the landscaping and maintenance of those properties that are located in the right-of-way.
Vieth, however, was skeptical of Chino Hill’s claims as to the value of its offered contribution. Last month she tendered a proposed decision on the undergrounding petition which went against Chino Hills and in favor of allowing Edison to leave the line completely above ground. Vieth stated her “proposed decision does not assign a value to Chino Hills’ proposed real property offset but concludes that the actual value is a much more modest amount than Chino Hills’ estimate.”
Vieth further noted that Chino Hills substantially underestimated other costs associated with the discontinuation of the original plan not included in the undergrounding costs and appeared insensitive to those added cost implications.
“In qualitative terms, Chino Hills’ estimate does not include any allowance for three cost items, tower foundation removal, fiber optic cable in the conduit and geotechnical work, none of which it contends are necessary, and compared to Southern California Edison, it significantly minimizes five other cost items or groups of costs,” Vieth stated.
Vieth’s recommendation to the full PUC board is a non-binding one, but it nonetheless reflects the pointed issues at play in the eventual outcome.
One of the issues raised by Chino Hills which Vieth considered but ultimately rejected was the contention that Chino Hills was uniquely burdened by the Tehachapi line and as such the undergrounding alternative through the community merited approval.
“The affected section in Chino Hills is longer than elsewhere and, as a total, more residences border the utility right of way, but the housing density is greater in Duarte, Chino and Ontario,” Vieth stated. “Certainly the Chino Hills’ community, or at least part of it, has been more vocal in its opposition but this, alone, is not a basis for deciding the merits. It can be difficult to measure the views of a community at large. On the facts reviewed above, we could conclude that Chino Hills is not unique.”
By her language, Vieth suggested that the PUC’s granting of Chino Hill’s undergrounding request could touch off similar demands in dozens of other communities, delaying and adding expense to the project.   In her decision, Vieth cited the following passage from the brief offered by the PUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates as being concisely relevant to the question at issue: “By this rationale, every city the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project passed through has a reasonable basis for seeking modification and requesting that the line be placed underground as it passes through those cities as well.”
Vieth went on to state, “[My] proposed decision denies the city of Chino Hills’ petition for modification of the [PUC’s 2009] decision regarding [the Chino Hills] segment of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. The proposed decision finds that while underground construction of a single circuit, two cables per phase design is feasible and could be completed on a timely basis, the cost is prohibitive and should not be borne by ratepayers at large for the benefit of the city and its residents.”
Vieth offered a glimpse of the reasoning that went into her decision/recommendation to the PUC board, stating that the undergrounding’s cost benefit ratio was too lopsided. “On a per mile basis, these estimates represent a high approaching $85 million per mile and a low approaching $77 million per mile,” she stated. Along the 3.5 mile span, according to Vieth, 220 houses were directly impacted by the towers. The cost of sparing them from the visual blight of the towers would essentially exceed the cost of the homes themselves. “For each of the 220 houses that borders the right-of-way, the cost is on the order of $1.2-$1.3 million per house,” according to Vieth.
Vieth’s is not the final word on the matter.  On the same day Vieth’s decision was publicly released, the Public Utilities Commission also released an alternative proposed decision by PUC President Michael Peevey that stood in stark contrast to Vieth’s ruling. Peevey, who since visiting Chino Hills to personally survey the towers in the Fall of 2011 has expressed his empathy for Chino Hills and its residents, endorsed the call to place 3.5 miles of the single circuit line below ground level.
Peevey’s estimation of the undergrounding cost matched neither Chino Hill’s lower undergrounding cost projection nor Southern California Edison’s higher one. Peevey’s projection –  $224 million – came in at least $46 million below Edison’s estimate.
Peevey’s alternate proposed decision grants the city of Chino Hills’ petition and orders Southern California Edison to construct an underground, single circuit, cross-linked polyethylene system for roughly 70 percent of the distance the Tehachapi Line traverses Chino Hills. Peevey’s proposed decision concludes that “the burden imposed on Chino Hills and its residents by 3.5 miles of the aboveground transmission line, with towers approaching 200 feet tall, is unfair, is contrary to community values under Public Utility Code Section 1002 and warrants undergrounding.”
In the aftermath of Peevey’s November 2011 order to Edison to consider the undergrounding options, advocates of the undergrounding had been hopeful that change would extend to the entire five mile distance through Chino Hills. By February 2012, however, those hopes were dashed when the PUC acceded to Southern California Edison’s insistence that it could not prepare economical plans to underground that portion of the Tehachapi Renewable Energy Project power line through a 1.5 mile section of the city known as the Oak Tree Downs along the north side of Carbon Canyon at the west extension of Chino Hills, given the undulations of the area’s rolling hills and other peculiarities in the contour of the land. The upshot is that at most, the line will be undergrounded for no more than 3.5 miles.
Bob Goodwin, the leader of the Chino Hills-based group Hope For The Hills which was instrumental in lobbying the PUC to revisit the undergrounding issue, said the Chino Hills community in general “looks forward to a decision by CPUC favoring public safety in Chino Hills on July 11. This has been an epic battle of a growing group of passionate citizens trying to undo bad management decisions at corporate giant SCE to construct a dangerous infrastructure project through a densely populated neighborhood. This would become the largest high voltage transmission project in the world that is located this close to a densely populated area.”
Goodwin said, “Chino Hills does not want to be an afterthought years from now when health issues arise, and they will, with the prolonged exposure to the electromagnetic frequency radiation these lines will emit. Additionally, with this project being the first like it in the U.S., the construction is not proven.”
He accused Southern California Edison of “experimenting on a community of residents with no regard to the health and safety impact this will have on families.”
Despite Vieth’s ruling against undergrounding, Goodwin said he was heartened by her conclusion that underground construction is feasible and the project could be completed on time if the undergrounding takes place. He hailed Peevey’s finding, “which grants the city of Chino Hills’ petition and orders SCE to construct an underground system. We appreciate,” Goodwin emphasized, “the courage demonstrated by the CPUC commissioners as they were personally appalled at the sight of seeing the arrogant towers with their own eyes.  It’s obvious they immediately recognized SCE’s reckless disregard for others.”

(July 5) Opposition is forming to Verizon’s application to construct a cell phone tower near the trout ponds at Mt. Baldy Village.
Verizon’s application for the tower has been submitted to the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Division and is being processed for a public hearing likely to take place late this summer.
Verizon was required to make public notice of the application, which alerted residents of Mt. Baldy Village. Several local residents spontaneously formed a group, known as the Keep Baldy Wild Coalition, to oppose Verizon’s application.
“We oppose the proposal submitted by Verizon to construct a cell phone tower by the trout ponds at Mt. Baldy Village,” Steve Sacks, the coalition’s spokesman, stated.
Sacks said his group’s opposition is not to the erection of a tower that will enhance communication service to the Mt. Baldy area but rather to the location Verizon has chosen.
“We are working to minimize the potential harmful biological effects of radio frequency radiation exposure from cell phone towers and antennae by applying the principle of prudent avoidance and advocating a tower placement that serves the needs of search and rescue and the fire department and is at least 3,000 feet from human habitation,” Sacks said.
In its application for the cell tower and its promotion of the project, Verizon has touted it as one that would provide better service to its customers and enhance safety by increasing communication coverage and facilitating the rescue of lost or injured hikers.
Sacks, however, disputed that, saying “Their proposal would only provide cell signals in Baldy Village, where Verizon stands to make money.  Verizon’s proposed tower would not cover the rugged terrain where hikers might need help. That is why the Keep Baldy Wild Coalition advocates an alternative site, far enough from residences and sensitive habitats to be safe, but with better coverage for hiking areas. We believe that such sites exist, and that it is up to Verizon to do engineering studies to prove their viability.”
According to Sacks, “The area surrounding the proposed cell tower site is a unique transitional chaparral/woodland/forest habitat for numerous plant and animal communities, including amphibians, snakes, migratory and year-round bird populations. Sensitive species among all of these categories also find refuge in this habitat. In addition, a declining population of Nelson Big Horn sheep drinks from San Antonio Creek nearby. These animals will be exposed to radio frequency radiation as they travel their traditional route down the hillside and while they drink. Mt. Baldy is currently a refuge area from radiation, for both humans and animals. We know that the health and fertility of animals can be affected by radiation.”
Sacks said that in addition to the risks posed to the wildlife in and around Mt. Baldy Village, the cell phone tower represents a health hazard to the village’s residents.
“Cell phone towers are associated with higher cancer rates,” he said. “The World Health Organization classifies radio frequency radiation as Category 2B, which is possibly a carcinogen to humans. No safe level of radio frequency radiation has been determined.”
Verizon referred questions about the safety of cell towers to the Federal Communications Commission, which has set health and safety guidelines for their size, power and placement.
Sacks said “Federal Communications Commission safety limits never anticipated wireless technology health impacts and do not protect against the biological effects of radio frequency radiation. U.S. limits were established by the telecom industry and are amongst the least protective in the world.”
Obliquely alluding to the presence of the U.S. Forest Service ranger station in Mt. Baldy Village, Sacks suggested that a wider base of opposition to the cell tower may yet manifest.
“The International Association of Firefighters opposes cell towers on or near fire stations, citing slowed reflexes, headaches, and loss of concentration with cell towers near fire stations,” he said.

(July 5) Most of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities have set their spending plans for the governmental fiscal year that began on Monday. Two thirds of the budgets are balanced.
The fiscal year runs from July 1 through June 30. Traditionally, prior to the end of June, cities pass a budget which outlines revenues to be derived and expenditures to be made over the upcoming twelve months. This year, every city inthe county except Upland had met that goal. The Upland City Council will consider its city’s budget next week.
Adelanto, which has projected it will run a $2.6 million deficit in its 2013-14 general fund, has declared a fiscal emergency, clearing the way for a citywide vote with regard to creating a taxing mechanism. In the meantime, the city council passed a budget spending more than it has available in income but provisionally balanced upon the use of reserves.  The budget projects revenue and transfers  of $17,488,513 and expenditures of $17,487,446.
In Apple Valley the town will have general fund revenues of $24,783,892 and general fund expenditures of $24,608,985. It will have special fund revenue of $12,914,879 while making expenditures from its special funds of $14,830,736. The town will expend $1,627,150 toward debt service. It will put $20,307,000 into its capital improvement fund account while spending $25,158,700 on capital improvements. It will take in $16,405,154 in revenue for its enterprise accounts while spending $17,689,786 on such enterprises. The successor to the town’s redevelopment agency will bring in $3,986,395 at the same time it must make $17,986,395 in payments to the creditors of its old redevelopment agency. Thus, Apple Valley will have total revenues in 2013-14 of $80,024,470 and total expenditures of $101,901,752.
In Fiscal Year 2013-14, Barstow anticipates $11,602,533 in revenue into its general fund and $11,602,010 in expenditures out of its general fund. Through all funds, Barstow anticipates $26,654,722 in revenue and $25,181,643 in expenditures
In Chino the projected revenue into the general fund is $47,001,011 and the city has   proposed appropriations of $45,487,145.
In Chino Hills, the city anticipates total expenditures for 2013-14 of  $159.7 million through all of its funds, including general fund expenditures, operating and capital, of $37.8 million, and restricted fund expenditures of $121.9 million. The city’s estimated revenues for 2013/14 are $138 million. General fund revenues, which fund law enforcement, recreation and general services, amount to $34.1 million. The remaining $103.9 million of the city’s revenue comes from restricted sources, including special revenue funds, proprietary operations, internal service funds, and agency funds.
The Colton City Council has approved a $120.8 million budget for fiscal year 2013-14, including general fund expenditures $29.8 million, enterprise funds of $81.7 million and special funds of $3.07 million. Other funds total $6.2 million.
Fontana has budgeted $77 million in spending out of its general fund in 2013-14.
Grand Terrace, which has also declared a fiscal emergency and will ask its citizens to approve a utility tax in November, has passed a budget anticipating $3.3 million in revenue and $3.98 million in expenditures.
In Hesperia, city officials have scheduled general fund expenditures of $23,827,402 with total resources (revenue, budgeted reserves, and transfers) of $23,983,765. The city further anticipates $22,729,914 in spending from funds beside the general fund, including $4,301,813 from the county transportation agency to be used on road repair and creation, $1.5 million in community development block grants, $554,020 in community development block grant loans, $3.28 million from the city’s street fund, and using $1.345 million for water rights acquisition.
In Highland, the city council has approved a budget that projects $13,509,355 in general fund revenue and $13,672,355 in general fund expenditures. The total projected revenue into all city of Highland funds is $49,736,780 and total expenditures from all city funds, which beyond the general fund consists almost exclusively of capital project spending, are projected at $75,952,590.
In Loma Linda, city officials have projected the city will receive $13,549,100 in revenue into the general fund and make expenditures of $13,503,500 from the general fund. Overall, Loma Linda will have revenue of $31,266,600 into all of its municipal funds and expenditures of $33,477,500 out of all of those funds.
Ontario’s proposed operating budget for 2013-12 is $423,826,981, including $168,997,116 in its general fund, and $254,829,865 in its special revenue, capital projects, enterprise, fiduciary services and internal services funds. In addition, the city is providing $19,375,799 for the Ontario Housing Authority and $19,306,474 for the redevelopment successor agency for a total overall operating budget of $462,509,254.
Needles will spend $5,470.218 out of its general fund while bringing $5,512,030 in revenue to its general fund. Needles will spend a total of $25,588,161 from all of its funds, including $12,355,318 by the Needles Public Utility Authority.
Rancho Cucamonga boasts a $65,240,470 general fund budget, and a $28,449,220 budget for its fire department, which is accounted for on a separate ledger. The city also is scheduling $4,138,190 of spending through its library fund, which is kept separate from its general fund. The city has another  $72,075,310 of spending slated through its special funds not included in its general fund.
Redlands, which anticipates revenue into its general fund of $51,315,371, will have general fund expenditures of $49,837,690.
Rialto projects taking in revenue of $58,798,000 and making $61,439,000 in expenditures for a $2,641,000 deficit.
The city of San Bernardino, which declared bankruptcy last August, has projected it will make $117.2 million in expenditures in 2013-14, while projecting revenues of $114.7 million.
Twentynine Palms will have general fund revenues of $8,052,000 and expenditures of $7,871,410.
The city of Upland has yet to officially confirm its budget. Upland City Manager Stephen Dunn told the Sentinel he anticipates the city will receive roughly $40 million in revenue in the twelve months between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 and can meet the goal he has imposed on the city’s department heads of holding overall operating expenditures to $38.5 million to stow away $1.5 million into a reserve account.
The City of Victorville’s annual budget for fiscal year 2013-14 is proposed at $126,360,698. Total revenue for the city’s general fund portion of the total budget is estimated at $48,822,218. Total expenditures out of the general fund are projected to be $48,762,397.
Yucaipa has projected $16,134,565 in revenue into its general fund and is anticipating general fund expenditures of $16,123,853.
The town of Yucca Valley has approved a $9.1 million budget for 2013-14.

(July 5) Former Congressman Jerry Lewis, who left the House of Representatives after a 34-year Congressional career that peaked with his chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee, is seeking to reassert himself as a political player with the formation of political action committee dedicated to electing candidates to federal office.
His role as a legislator now behind him, Lewis is testing whether his reserve of leftover campaign cash and his cachet as one of the steady rocks of his party will allow him to don the mantel of kingmaker.
Within the last fortnight, Lewis converted the now-defunct Lewis For Congress Committee, the campaign committee he had utilized to finance his sixteen runs for reelection to Congress and which had $856,408 left in it when he left office, into a new political action committee. The newly-created PAC will enable him to endow the campaign committees of federal candidates and other committees as Lewis deems fit.
Lewis’s reborn political engine has been dubbed the Jerry Lewis Political Action Committee.
Despite the consideration that Lewis opted to not seek re-election in 2012, in the 2011-12 election cycle the Lewis For Congress Committee nevertheless took in $517,353 in donations.
Lewis served in Congress from 1979 through 2012 and was the godfather of a powerful Southern California political dynasty that promoted the candidacies of several politicians, including former assemblyman Bret Granlund, district attorney Mike Ramos, former supervisor Dennis Hansberger and former assemblyman Russ Bogh. Long the ranking member and later the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, Lewis eventually acceded to the position of chairman of the House Appropriations Committee when the Republicans achieved majority status in 2005. He stayed in that position through 2006, achieving notoriety as a strong supporter of earmarks.
Lewis’s political career fell into eclipse in 2007, when the U.S. Justice Department initiated an investigation into a number of his votes on the Defense Appropriations Committee relating to weapons systems and defense contracts and his relationship to defense contractors and a lobbying firm, Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton & White, which worked on behalf of those defense contractors. Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton & White served as a major fundraiser for Lewis and employed one of his former House colleagues, Bill Lowery, as well as at least two former Lewis staffers after they left Lewis’ office. At the heart of the investigation were votes Lewis made in support of certain weapons systems and contracts which he had not initially supported but which he later voted to approve after the lobbying firm or the defense contractor directly provided money to Lewis’s electioneering fund. Lewis had intentions of retiring from Congress as early as 2008 but delayed that retirement as the Justice Department’s investigation intensified, even after the law firm representing Lewis – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher  – moved to successfully hire the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Wong Yang, who was heading up the Lewis investigation by providing her a $1.5 million signing bonus.
Lewis utilized over $2.7 million from his electioneering fund to pay Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to represent him with regard to the U.S. Attorney’s investigation. In 2011, after the Justice Department closed out its investigation, Lewis was able to surrender the leverage he held as one of the senior members of Congress without disadvantage, and the following year he retired.
While Lewis was not the most prolific of fundraisers during his tenure in Congress, he did raise a respectable $10.6 million, including $5.7 million from PACs, which was used to sustain the Lewis For Congress Committee as well as a political action committee he founded, the still-extant Future Leaders PAC, which currently has $45,150 in its coffers.

(July 5) Ted Leher, who worked for both former San Bernardino County supervisor and assessor Bill Postmus and current Supervisor Janice Rutherford as an aide and political consultant, has been charged with stealing from former state Assembly candidate Russ Warner.
On June 27, the district attorney’s office filed a criminal complaint against Lehrer, 41, charging him with four separate felony counts, including embezzlement by an employee, misrepresentation as an access card holder, grand theft of property and grand theft of access cards.
Lehrer, who previously worked as a political consultant exclusively for Republican candidates, went to work last year for Warner, a Democrat, in his effort to unseat incumbent Republican 40th District Assemblyman Mike Morrell.
The complaint alleges that between January 2012 and February of this year, Lehrer obtained on at least four occasions credit cards belonging to Warner, Warner’s company and his campaign, using them to run up more than $950 in unauthorized purchases.
As of Wednesday, there was no record of Lehrer having been arrested.
Records show that the petition for an ex parte arrest warrant was done electronically on June 27 and granted by the court the same day.
No judge hearing the case was specified. There was no indication that Lehrer or his attorney, Jazheel Osejo, had made a court appearance. Attempts to reach both were unsuccessful.
Lehrer’s value as political asset has been previously brought into question.
The Warner campaign paid him $54,000 to manage the electoral effort against Morrell. Warner lost and, it now appears, Lehrer was utilizing campaign money, much of which Warner personally provided, for purchases benefiting himself to the detriment of the campaign.
In the fall of 2010, Lehrer was working as a consultant to then-Fontana Councilwoman Janice Rutherford during her run-off campaign against incumbent county Second District supervisor Paul Biane. Less than two weeks before the election, at 1 a.m. on October 23, 2010, Lehrer was arrested by sheriff’s deputies near the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue for vandalism. Lehrer claimed it was an innocent misadventure that grew out of his overloading a trash can when he was discarding materials while he was posting political signs, which carried with it a suggestion Lehrer was illegally removing Biane signage. The incident briefly shed discredit on the Rutherford campaign but was not damaging enough to keep her from being elected.
Prior to that, Lehrer had worked for Postmus as a campaign consultant in 2004 and 2006 and then was hired as a spokesman for the assessor’s office in 2007. By 2008, Postmus fell under suspicion of using the assessor’s office and its resources for partisan purposes. That investigation would lead to his prosecution as well as that of four of his employees. The ensuing scandal resulted in Postmus’s conviction and resignation. Lehrer was not charged, but did turn state’s evidence against Postmus and his assessor’s office colleagues.

(July 5) Congressman Gary Miller, who defied the odds to gain election in the Democratic-leaning 31st Congressional District last year despite his Republican Party affiliation, is reportedly considering seeking reelection to Congress in 2014 in the 45th District.
Members of Congress do not need to live within the geographical boundaries of the district they represent, and merely need to live within the state where the district in which they hold office is located.
Between 2002 and 2012, Miller had represented voters in the 42nd District, encompassing the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, the northeastern corner of Orange County and the southeastern corner of Los Angeles County, where Republicans held a strong registration advantage. But with the redistricting following the 2010 Census, Miller was left without a district in which to run safely, as Ed Royce, another incumbent Republican, found himself reapportioned into the new 39th District, which commandeered much of Miller’s old 42nd District.
Miller elected to run in the newly formed 31st District, which encompasses part of Rancho Cucamonga, and stretches eastward across San Bernardino County through a large portion of Fontana, Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino and Redlands. Another Republican, Bob Dutton, joined the fray in the 31st District in the 2012 primary, as did four Democrats – Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, Justin Kim, Rita Ramirez-Dean, and Renea Wickman. Despite the eight percent Democratic voter registration advantage in the 31st, simple mathematics hurt the Democrats as their vote was divided four ways, while the Republican vote was split two ways. Dutton and Miller proved to be the two top vote-getters and under California’s open primary arrangement, the November general election came down to a race between Republicans Miller and Dutton. Miller prevailed in that race.
In the lull before the 2014 electoral storm, Democrats appear determined to not allow themselves to be outmaneuvered by the Republicans in the 31st again. They have moved to consolidate their backing behind Aguilar early in an effort to ward off any Democratic challengers who might dilute the Democratic vote next year.  Joe Baca, a Democrat who was a member of Congress from 1999 until he was ousted by another Democrat, Gloria Negrete-McLeod, last year, has indicated he is considering a run against Miller, as has Eloise Gomez Reyes, a longtime Democratic activist. If they make good on their early demonstration of interest and stay in the race, Gomez Reyes and Baca may create a circumstance where Democrats might cancel each other out again in the 31st. But if Democratic Party strategists have their way, Baca and Gomez Reyes will be persuaded to divert their ambition elsewhere for the good of the party and to ensure party unity.
Recently, Republican Representative John Campbell has announced he will retire from Congress and will not run for reelection in the 45th District in 2014.
Reportedly, Miller is among a bevy of Republicans contemplating stepping in to fill the void this will create. The 45th District is a strongly Republican one, where it would be near impossible for a Democrat to prevail. With his status as an incumbent, Miller will be able to garner considerable political and financial support, which gives him a leg up on capturing a victory in the primary, leading to almost inevitable victory in the November general election.
Nevertheless, Miller may have to wade into a crowded field in the 45th. The 45th District is located in Orange County. Others whose ears pricked up at Campbell’s retirement announcement were State Senator Mimi Walters, Assemblyman Don Wagner, Orange County Supervisor Patricia Bates, Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer, Laguna Hills Councilman Andrew Blount, former state senator Dick Ackerman and Irvine Mayor Steven Choi.
Miller gave a coy signal that he was contemplating switching to the 45th District in less than two years. “I thank John for his service to the House and his constituents — many of whom I have previously represented — and wish him and his family all the best,” Miller said in a prepared statement. “In the days and months ahead, I will continue to work to improve the quality of life for my constituents, the Southern California region and the nation.”

(July 5) The county board of supervisors last week approved providing $3.5 million to nine elderly nutrition programs.
According to Ron Buttram, the director of the county’s department of aging and adult services, “The senior nutrition program provides nourishing meals and nutrition education and counseling to people 60 years of age or older and their spouses. Since 1978, DAAS has administered the Senior Nutrition Program for the county of San Bernardino. We anticipate that in 2013-14, these contractors will provide approximately 299,570 congregate and 326,577 home delivered meals throughout the County.”
A solicitation of bids in February attracted ten applications to provide the meal service. All ten were determined to be qualified.
One of those, the Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District, declined the recommended award of a contract.
Buttram said the county would award “contracts with nine agencies to provide elderly nutrition program services, in a combined total contract amount not to exceed $3,565,330, for the period of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
The Barstow Senior Citizens Center will be provided with $187,630.
He Big Bear Valley Recreation and Park District will receive $26,939.
The Bonnie Baker Senior Citizens Club will receive $118,300.
The city of San Bernardino will receive $210,122.
The city of Montclair will get $86,204.
The Crest Forest Senior Citizens Club will receive $35,918.
The Family Service Association will receive $2,504,329.
Hi Desert Meals on Wheels will receive $370,746.
The Lucerne Valley Senior Citizens Center will receive $25,142.

(June 28) In just two-and-a-half years, the construction contract on the Adelanto Detention Center Project has escalated more than $25 million.
Moreover, the total cost of the project, including engineering, architectural, licensing  and inspection costs, has now zoomed to $144 million, $24 million beyond the $120 million projected to be the project’s overall cost including a ten percent cost overrun contingency.
The construction bill on the project, originally slated at $90,951,937, has now reached $116,244,333. This week the county board of supervisors approved the seventh change order and its eighth and ninth contract amendments to the construction contract it has with Bellevue, Washington-based Lydig Construction, Inc.
There have been multiple overruns on the project, which the county’s architecture and engineering officials claim stem from what they say were unforeseen developments. Those changes, however, now exceed more than 20 percent of the original budget – well beyond the ten percent contingency initially allowed when the project was approved.
The project was born in controversy. The core of the facility in question was built as a 500-bed private prison in 1997 and 1998 by Terry Moreland. Construction cost on the project rose from an initially projected $11 million to $16 million and  Moreland became bogged down in disputes with construction workers, who sued, claiming underpayment and nonpayment. The facility opened and was run under the auspices of Moreland’s company, Maranatha Private Corrections, as part of the Moreland Family Trust, housing state inmates under contract with the state of California.
In July 2004, the state Department of Corrections announced it would not renew its contract with Maranatha and was to close the facility as of September 1, 2004. Moreland went to court against the state.
Moreland retained Platinum Advisors, a lobbying firm which employed former state assemblyman Bret Granlund. Platinum Advisors also worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the county of San Bernardino.  In a coordinated campaign that involved a request by then-sheriff Gary Penrod for more inmate-housing space and efforts by Platinum Advisors to  interest the county in absorbing  Maranatha Prison as a detention facility, Moreland was able to ingratiate himself with members of the board of supervisors.
While other options were considered by the county, including building a new large scale jail from scratch or adapting and expanding the city jail in Adelanto, Moreland through legal and political efforts was maintaining his contract with the state on a month-to-month basis. Platinum Advisors and Granlund intensified their efforts on behalf of Moreland to interest the county in the Maranatha Prison, including the provision of gifts to then-chairman of the board of supervisors Bill Postmus. At Postmus’ behest, the county agreed to consider an appraisal of the facility for the purpose of considering a potential purchase.
The appraisal, completed in February 2005, pegged the facility’s value at $28 million.Granlund formulated an option to buy and purchase agreement for the facility, located on 9438 Commerce Way in Adelanto, and offered it to the county.
In April 2005, the county exercised that option to purchase the prison for $31.2 million, which included $3.2 million in improvements. Controversy would later ensue when members of the board of supervisors claimed they were not aware that Granlund and Platinum were working for Moreland.
Moreland’s contract with the state was terminated after the county purchased the prison. It lay fallow for more than two years. In March 2008, the board of supervisors approved thesubmittal of a proposal to the State Correction Standards Authority requesting available funding of up to $100,000,000 to cover 75 percent of the cost to construct 1,368 additional jail beds at what was dubbed the Adelanto Detention Center. In May 2008, the county was conditionally awarded the requested $100 million for the expansion, and was ranked first on the list of public entities to be conditionally awarded funds  available under a state detention facility financing law, AB900. In July 2010, the board gave conceptual approval to the project and established the various obligations of the county, California Public Works Board, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as to the project’s general terms and termination, cost, cost sharing, scope, schedule, bidding and construction, post project completion and records retention for the project.
The county held a bidding competition that fall and in December 2010 awarded a $90,951,937 contract to Lydig as the low bidder. The overall project cost at that time was put at $120 million, which included a ten percent contingency.
Since that time, the cost of the project, which is to consist of three four-story housing buildings plus a support building that includes booking and holding cells and a medical clinic, has consumed the state money and eaten up the ten percent contingency as well and risen significantly beyond that, led by contract increases with Lydig.
This week the board of supervisors approved a $10 million increase in the project cost for the jail expansion. In May, the board approved an $8 million increase to the jail project budget. Three months before that, in February, the board agreed to a $6 million increase.
Recurrent issues in the construction cost increases have been functionality problems and design changes with the smoke control and fire sprinkler systems and change orders and contract amendments pertaining to a water well on the site which was intended to provide water to the facility that turned out to be contaminated with a high level of fluoride.
A review of the change orders and amendments on the project and their expense and extent illustrates the degree to which the project was not fully examined or projected prior to commencement.
Eight months after Lydig was granted the original $90,951,937 contract, the county amended the contract to pay Lydig another $448,516 to install approximately 3,000 linear feet of 5” conduit, pull boxes and electrical vaults as required by Southern California Edison.
On December 13, 2011, a second amendment to the contract was made for demolition and installation of concrete and asphalt associated with the rerouting of utilities and electrical duct banks as well as the modification to 124 handicap combo units at a cost of $303,773.
On April 24, 2012, a third amendment to the contract relating to modifications to lengthen holding cell benches and state fire marshal-mandated design modifications to the construction elevated the contract by $834,076. On September 11, 2012 a fourth amendment calling for the addition of handicap desks to the jails dayrooms, stainless steel well casing for the well and state fire marshal-mandated seismic upgrades to thefire protection lines set taxpayers back another $557,668. On February 23 of this year, the county amended the contract  to provide state fire marshal-mandated changes to the smoke control evacuation and automatic fire sprinkler systems, increase in number and size the heating ventilation and air conditioning structural roof supports as well as make further modifications mandated by the state fire marshal and various other agencies, providing Lydig with another $2,472,388 enhancement to the contract. On May 21, the county amended Lydig’s contract relating to labor and materials related to the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems, to, in the words of county director of architecture and engineering Carl Alban, “convert the specified fire smoke dampers to smoke dampers as part of the revisions to the smoke control system” in the amount of $5,063,392.
Also on May 21, the county approved amendment No. 7 to the contract to cover labor and materials for the added treatment systems associated with the water well, not including the potential costs of schedule impacts along with labor and materials for the purchase of the switch gear and installation of conduit from the service yard to the existing pull boxes, as required for the installation of a third electrical service at an added cost of $1,818,807.
In addition to those previous contract amendments, the county also made several expensive change orders, including one for $2,101,536 on  August 23, 2011 that called for upgrading the security electronics in the existing facility and to provide touch screens, digital intercoms, a camera system and increased video storage capabilities, install frosted security glazing in lieu of the standard clear glazing specified in the sleeping rooms and install an anti-MRSA and prime coat finish on the floors and walls at the support building. It then made a second change order on December 13, 2011 involving an added cost of $2,392,443 to install a card reader system in the housing units to be utilized by sheriff personnel, purchase scheduling licenses for video visitation kiosks; and upgrade the roofing system to a single ply system.
On April 24, 2012 the architecture and engineering division sought from the board of supervisors approval for a third change order that called for installing an anti-MRSA coating to interior handrails in the dayrooms of the housing units and the installation of various security electronics, electrical and plumbing modifications and enhancements at a cost of $824,237.
On September 11, 2012, the board acceded to a fourth change order, at a cost of $902,801, for the addition of detention ceilings at the 32-bed dorms; modifications to center core casework, guardrails and exhaust systems, modification of the roof system and various utility modifications and enhancements.
On February 26, the fifth change order, one for $367,734, provided electrical power and venting for dryers and various structural, utility and mechanical modifications to the new expansion and existing facility.
On May 21, the sixth change order, at a cost of $47,651, called for the planting of Yucca Rostrata Trees in lieu of the specified owner-furnished Yucca Trees which are no longer available; modifications to the seismic joints between the housing units; providing a remote maintenance bypass switch for the security electronics system; deleting the painting of the interior of the mezzanine level mechanical chases; and providing security metal panels to conceal electrical conduits in two of the buildings.
This week the board approved an eighth amendment to the contract at a cost of $6,068,128 to cover labor, materials, labor impacts and acceleration costs related to the revision of the smoke control systems and fire protection systems. This brought the total cost of repairing the smoke control systems to $11,068,128, which includes the $5,000,000 allowance approved as part of the sixth amendment to the contract.
This week the board also signed off on a ninth contract amendment, one for $537,336, to cover labor and materials for the added treatment systems associated with the water well, not including the potential costs of schedule impacts. The total cost of the treatment systems is $2,037,336, which includes the $1.5 million allowance approved as part of the seventh amendment to the contract.
The board on Tuesday also approved a change order, entailing an added cost of $551,910, to make security improvements requested by the sheriff’s department; modifications to the phone and data cabling requested by the county’s information services department to improve facility communication systems; and miscellaneous revisions related to construction..
To date, the construction contract amendments and change orders total $25,292,396, pushing the total amount of the revised contract to $116,244,333.
In addition to the amendments to and change orders made on the construction contract, there have been amendments and change orders to other service providers on the project.
The firm of  Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Incorporated, based in Culver City, was originally given a $4,466,000 contract to provide architectural service on the project. Nine amendments later, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum’s contract has reached $10,438,396, an increase of $5,972,396.
C.H.J. Incorporated of Colton was hired under a $413,857 contract to perform testing and inspection. After fivecontract amendments, C.H.J. has taken on another $1,920,546 of work so that the total amount that company has received under the revised contract is $2,334,403.
At this point, the $100 million provided by the state of California for the project has been expended  and the county’s costs have reached $44 million. Alban was not able to offer a guarantee that there will be no further increases in the project, which is supposed to be completed by January.

(June 28)  GRAND TERRACE – The Grand Terrace City Council on Tuesday declared the city to be in a state of fiscal emergency, simultaneously readying the 12,500 residents of the city for either further municipal service reductions or the imposition of a tax to redress the city’s deteriorating financial state.
As the third smallest city in San Bernardino County population-wise, Grand Terrace is at a geographical disadvantage in that it is nestled into the unpopulated Riverside County frontier on the south, Blue Mountain to the east and is elevated on a terrace above Colton and San Bernardino to the north, such that the city is isolated and relatively uninviting to passers-by. As such, the commercial and retail base it hosts serves little more than its own limited population and the city generates less in sales tax than all of the county’s other cities. This lack of revenue was an issue for Grand Terrace even before it incorporated as a city in 1978, when the Local Agency Formation Commission staff had recommended against Grand Terrace’s formation and had to be overruled by its board members.
After incorporation, city manager Seth Armstead and his successor, Tom Schwab, sought to bring in additional retail businesses to beef up sales tax revenue but were consistently frustrated in those efforts because retailers were resistant to setting up shop in a trade area with such a limited population.  In time, the city gravitated to utilizing its redevelopment agency to shore up the city financially, utilizing it to employ city workers whose main duties had little or nothing to do with redevelopment, while the city made borrowings from the agency to finance operations on a year to year basis, and did not repay those loans.
With the departure of Schwab as city manager in 2008, city officials moved to end this reliance on the redevelopment agency. Beginning in 2009-10, the city embarked on an effort to lean out municipal operations and since that time there has been a 57 percent reduction of city staff. Then in 2011, as the city was weaning itself from its financial dependence on the redevelopment agency, state legislation shuttered redevelopment agencies throughout California.
Grand Terrace in its 2012-13 general fund budget anticipated revenues of $3,539,486 and expenditures of $3,856,167. The city fell short of its revenue expectations, and the city has sustained what is anticipated to be a $760,513 budget deficit in the current fiscal year ending this Sunday, June 30. It made up that difference by utilizing remaining reserves. In a report, city staff noted that the projected budget deficit for next year runs in the neighborhood of what the city will lose in revenue from the loss of its redevelopment agency – $737,848.
After advance publicity about the city’s pending financial doom and speculation that the city would go so far as to disincorporate and return to being a county service area, a capacity crowd came to Grand Terrace City Hall and flooded the council chambers June 25 to witness the city council’s action.
While the council did not take the drastic step of abolishing the city, it did vote to declare a fiscal emergency and to pass the 2013-14 budget, topped by a resolution calling for a citywide vote in November on a utility tax measure intended to generate $1.5 million per year. The budget anticipates $3.3 million in revenue and projects $3.98 million in expenditures, while counting upon an infusion of money by means of the tax that will balance the budget by June 30, 2014. If the tax measure does not pass, city officials said, they will move on December 1 to make draconian cuts that will ensure the budget balances.
The new budget calls for a reduction in police service. The city contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and at present the sheriff’s department, which is also contracted to patrol neighboring Loma Linda, devotes 6.8 deputies to patrol duties in Grand Terrace. That number will drop to 5.8 after the new fiscal year commences on July 1.
The council built in conditional cuts to the budget, which will entail the closure of the city’s two largest parks, the elimination of one more deputy position and defunding the senior citizen center that will go into effect on December 1 if the utility tax measure does not pass in November.
City residents have proven resistant to taxing proposals in the past. Mayor Walt Stanckiewitz told the Sentinel it is now up to the city’s voters to decide whether the city is indeed on the brink of evaporation or crying wolf.
“As members of the city council, we have the challenge of educating the public,” Stanckiewitz said on Wednesday. “We had over 200 people in the council chambers last night and I believe they understood the situation. They had a response. Their basic message was this is their choice, whether they are willing to take on a tax to save the city. It is not the council’s decision. Our decision was to give them that choice.”
Stanckiewitz said there is some prospect the city’s residents will approve the tax. “Many of them do not like it but the predominant attitude seemed to be ‘This is still our city and if this is what we have to do to save it, then this is what we’ll do. If we have to give up a night out going to dinner and the theater, we will do that.’”
Stanckiewitz said there were various calculations as to what the cost of the tax would be per family.  “It depends on what you use as your average household size,” he said. “If you figure 2.5 per household, in a city of 12,500 population, that comes to $25 to $30 per month. We have a consulting firm working those numbers. We should have them on July 9.”
While he sought to be upbeat, Stanckiewitz gave a grim assessment of what might await the city.
“If the revenue measure does not pass in November, then we will reduce another deputy as of December 1, which will represent $150,200 in savings through the remainder of the year,” the mayor said. “We will discontinue funding the senior center, for another $13,500 savings. We will shut down our emergency operations and save $2,800. We will close Pico and Richard Rollins parks and save $60,000. We will still need to do weed abatement, so we will have to put another $6,500 back into the budget. As of January 1, we will reduce our contract for city attorney and finance department services to save $26,000. And we will engage in a further indoor work force reduction at City Hall, changing over to having our city manager and other staff present only two days a week to achieve a savings of $266,000. We would no longer have a city staff. If we have to do this, we are done as a city for all intents and purposes.”
Despite the historic significance of the council declaring the city to be at the cusp of a financial abyss Tuesday night, Stanckiewitz did not characterize what occurred as a defeat.
“We had a good meeting,” he said.  “We adopted a budget that will be balanced by June 30, 2014 with or without a tax measure. We are looking to find an additional $300,000 so we can balance our funding. We reduced the sheriff’s contract by one deputy for the full year, which will save us $257,000. We will put $10,000 back in for overtime in case we need it in view of the layoff. We succeeded in keeping a balanced budget and we declared a fiscal emergency, which gave us the ability to go out to our citizens to see if they want to support maintaining their city, so they can decide what should be done. That is as it should be.”

(June 28) YUCCA VALLEY — This town of 20,700 faces a water quality crisis that will, if it is not redressed, severely impact all of its residents and trigger state action that could reduce it to a ghost town by 2022, an official with the California Water Resources Control Board told residents and community leaders last week.
The Colorado River Region Division of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board convened its regular meeting at the Yucca Valley Community Center on June 20. The meeting extended itself to more than three hours and forty-five minutes as state water board staff held forth on the pending May 19, 2016 septic system prohibition deadline which faces Yucca Valley.
Yucca Valley, which became the last of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities to incorporate in 1991, is likewise the last remaining city to function without a sewer system.
Long a remote and rustic desert area that attracted those wishing to remain well off the beaten track,  Yucca Valley made its first lurch toward urbanization in the 1950s when Norman J. Essig’s promoted it as both a getaway to and private residency for entertainment celebrities. He ventured capital toward that end, acquiring hundreds of acres, which he improved with roads around the region’s major arterial, Highway 62, also known as Twentynine Palms Highway.
While attracting movie stars as well as recording and visual artists was only marginally successful, the improvements did succeed in luring others by virtue of the relatively inexpensive land prices, and Yucca Valley grew sporadically over the years, appealing to the independent minded and lovers of the remote desert beauty. As early as 1973, when the area’s population was hovering below 5,000, there was a push to outfit the core of Yucca Valley with a rudimentary sewer system, one that would extend only to the town’s modest commercial area and the relatively sparse residential neighborhoods that surrounded it. But a water treatment facility and skeleton sewer system to which future developments could connect carried a price tag of roughly $10 million, well beyond the tiny community’s fiscal means at that time.
After the town’s November 1991 incorporation, civic officials continued to reflect and embody the values of their constituents, who eschewed big government and excessive regulation and put a premium on maintaining the town’s rural character. There was little collective will to pave any roads other than the town’s main thoroughfares and many town streets remain dusty trails to this day. A modern, urban sewer system is no more of an imperative to most locals. At the same time, the town council has been accommodating of most developers who expressed an interest in Yucca Valley, and over the first 20 years of the town’s history as an incorporated entity, gave builders what has essentially been carte blanche to build aggressively without incorporating urban land use standards.
Thus, the septic systems that had proliferated in Yucca Valley for three-quarters of a century remained the accoutrement of homes and businesses built within the 40 square mile city limits.
Ten years after incorporation Yucca Valley’s officials were notified by the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Board that the lack of a sewage treatment system had resulted in nitrates accumulating in the water table. Simultaneously, the Hi-Desert Water District, which serves the Yucca Valley community, experienced nitrate traces in district wells.
Local officialdom did not respond with alacrity. Rather some feigned outrage that the state felt it necessary to involve itself in what many perceived as a local issue. As a good number of those who had moved to Yucca Valley were senior citizens and retirees living on fixed incomes who had been attracted to the area by cheap land, they were alarmed by the concept of having to defray the cost for the installation of a sewer system. They were heartened and to a certain extent lulled into a state of complacency by their political leadership, which asserted the town would not fall victim to overreaching regulation imposed on it by Sacramento. Thus, the water table contamination issue was kicked down the road.
In the early 2000s, monitoring carried out by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Geological survey demonstrated that residues left in the ground that seep into the aquifer had increased to levels that presaged health threats if the matter was not addressed. Those contaminants included nitrates and other pollutants including pharmaceuticals and salts.
Historic pumping increases from the 1940s to 1995 resulted in the water levels dropping faster than the nitrates from septic systems seeped downward. Thus, for years Yucca Valley was able to avoid the consequences of the contamination accumulating in the local soil. Eventually, however, as the water table dropped lower and lower as a result of greater utilization combined with limited recharge from rainfall, the water district began importation of state aqueduct water into Yucca Valley. Completion of the Morongo Basin Pipeline project and the accompanying completion and activation of recharge basins in Yucca Valley allowed the Hi-Desert Water District to begin percolating water into the aquifer and the water table began to rise. That water came in contact with the high levels of nitrates left over from decades of septic discharge and the nitrates found their way into some of the Hi-Desert Water District’s wells. Notice of the contamination triggered a scaling back of the Hi-Desert Water District’s recharge efforts, and the goal of reestablishing the Yucca Valley water table to the natural level present in the 1940s has not been achieved.
The imported water has actually diluted the nitrates so water tests now show nitrate levels below the maximum contaminant level allowed by the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In the meantime, the discharge of septic waste continues and the United States Geological Survey determined that nitrates accumulating beneath Yucca Valley are present in ever increasing concentrations and at depths that pose a threat to the groundwater, including a calculation that 880 acre-feet of septic discharge currently reaches the groundwater every year.
In 2007, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the state agency responsible for protecting water quality, adopted a resolution identifying the town of Yucca Valley as one of 66 communities throughout the state with groundwater threatened by the continuing overuse of septic systems. The board further declared Yucca Valley as a top priority for eliminating the use of septic systems, meaning Yucca Valley’s is one of the five most seriously threatened water supplies in the state.
Nevertheless, local officials resisted taking immediate action, as they lacked the financial wherewithal to undertake the construction of a sewer system. Nor did the city have the will to impose any kind of building or development moratorium that would stabilize the problem.
For a while, town and the water district officials were able to delay the imposition of state mandates by forging a memorandum of agreement with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Hi-Desert Water District to allow interim permits for new septic systems while planning for a wastewater system proceeded. But they could not suspend the consequences indefinitely.
By 2010, Yucca Valley’s population had zoomed to 20,700, an increase of 3,835 or 22.7 percent over the 16,865 town residents counted in the 2000 Census.
In 2011, the town was firmly informed that it had only five years to take a definitive step toward water quality compliance.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has imposed three progressive phases of septic discharge prohibitions on Yucca Valley. Under the state mandate, phase 1 of a wastewater system must be completed or significantly on its way to completion by May 19, 2016 or enforcement action will be initiated. The first phase of the project is to cover the downtown area of Yucca Valley, the area most proximate to the heart of the groundwater basin.  Similarly, phase 2 must be completed or nearly completed by May 19, 2019 and phase 3 must be completed by May 19, 2022. The last two phases lie further out where future concentrated development is most likely to occur.
On June 20, the State Water Resources Control Board’s sub-executive director, Jose Angel, told those gathered at the community center the state will be methodical and thorough in enforcing the prohibition, holding the town to account to complete each phase of the project by the succeeding deadlines and taking steps to ensure that each residential and commercial property within each phase’s geographical boundaries ties into the sewer system once it is in place.
And indeed the state has utilized draconian measures in the past against other communities that failed to come into compliance, such as in Los Osos, which was under a similar order from the California Water Resources Board and failed to heed it. The entire community of Los Osos became subject to an enforcement action, which was done in a lottery fashion, in which random property owners were selected to receive cease and desist orders with the potential of daily fines for non-compliance. They were ordered to discontinue the discharge from their septic systems, seal them off and pump them at regular intervals. If they did not, they were subjected to fines of up to $5,000 per day.
Of tremendous moment is where and how the town of Yucca Valley and the water district, which is to undertake the project as the lead agency, will find funding to build the system.
In the past, the main focus was on seeking grants and low interest loans to be followed up by a debt servicing mechanism on those loans. One such effort was Measure U, sponsored by the town last year and which appeared on the November ballot. If passed, Measure U would have imposed a one-cent sales tax within Yucca Valley. Town officials said the lion’s share of those proceeds would go toward building the sewer system. Measure U was defeated, however.
The water district has done much of the preparatory work for the wastewater system, calculating that the entire system can be constructed for $125 million. The system would consist of a water treatment plant and a collection system entailing over 400,000 linear feet of pipe.
The district has obtained a $20 million authorization from the Bureau of Reclamation and has applied for a low to no-interest loan through a state revolving fund and continues to aggressively seek grants. In the end, there will yet need to be significant financial participation by the town’s residents. A dated calculation is that each parcel in Yucca Valley will be counted upon to provide $16,700 toward the system construction debt burden.  If the $125 million cost of the project can be defrayed over 30 years, water district officials calculate the project can be financed through homeowner assessments of $20 to $40 per month to cover just the construction costs of the system. Operational charges will be additional.
A significant number of Yucca Valley residents are retired seniors living mostly on fixed incomes who moved to Yucca Valley because they considered it to be an inexpensive place to retire.
The town and water district have yet to make an all-out appeal to Yucca Valley’s leading citizen, former mayor, former California Assemblyman and current Congressman Paul Cook.
Though Cook has acknowledged that building the sewer system is a desirable goal, he has long maintained the state is overstepping its authority by requiring that it be built on the local dime. When he was the region’s representative in Sacramento, Cook effectively undercut the project’s proponents, referring to the demand that Yucca Valley transition from septic systems to a sewer system as “just another unfunded state mandate.”   He dwelled at length upon the cost of the project and what he considered his constituents’ inability to bear that cost. He predicted last year that “This [the Yucca Valley sewer system] is never going to happen. We have to remember what type of community this is. We got to be very, very careful when we start talking $125 million to people who cannot afford it because we do not have the businesses and the state’s not going to give you the money.” As assemblyman, Cook said he was not afraid to confront Governor Jerry Brown over the issue and “get a bloody nose.”  Cook said that as a California legislator he would seek to force the California Water Resources Control Board to provide Yucca Valley residents and businesses access to extended term, reduced interest rate loans along with debt forgiveness.
Now no longer a California state legislator, Cook has yet to use his position in Washington, D.C. to see if he can tap into any pork barrels to fund the project.