By Mark Gutglueck

The Cadiz Water Project is not the first effort by outside business entities to lay claim to San Bernardino County’s water resources and utilize them elsewhere in Southern California.
For nearly 120 years, speculators have sought to capture local water rights and profiteer by selling the water to local users or diverting it elsewhere within or outside of the county. Most of those efforts pertain to water which originates in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows northward into the Mojave River or southward into the Santa Ana River.
Between October and December of 1892, a group of investors from Minneapolis and St. Paul raised $1.5 million and before the close of the year used a portion of that money to purchase from the Hesperia Land and Water Company an option on the water rights and dam site at Victor Narrows. Working in conjunction with Dr. Joseph Jarvis from Riverside, James E. Mack of Bloomington as well as A. H. Koebig and O.J. Perkins of Los Angeles,  the group was purposed to buy outright or otherwise purchase options on property that carried with it the existing water claims around the Mojave River and a suitable site for a 171-foot high and from 75-foot-to-150-foot-wide dam and reservoir above the Upper Mojave Narrows that would house enough water to irrigate 250,000 acres in the High Desert.
When the Panic of ‘93 hit later that year, the resolve to continue the effort dissolved.  A handful of the participants reformed as another corporation headquartered in Springfield, Illinois led by J. C. Dickson of Sierra Madre and the previously referenced James E. Mack, still intent upon a venture to harness the Mojave River. That effort, too, foundered. But in 1895, J. W. Wilson, together with O. O. Howard, formed a corporation, the Columbia Colonization Company of Chicago, and bought the Victor reservoir project for a promissory note of $80,000. Later that year, Howard dropped out of the venture, to be replaced by H. P. Sweet. The Columbia Colonization Company entered into agreements with homesteaders of 320-acre ranges provided for in the Desert Land Act to permanently provide those homesteaders with water in exchange for 280 of their claimed acres. The company  then sought to sell land thus obtained to investors or buyers interested in occupying it. Questions about the legality of the company’s sales of land to which the government still held title emerged, resulting in a federal district court order enjoining the Columbia Colonization Company from marketing unpatented government land or their bonds outside of California. The company subsequently faltered when it failed to deliver on its promissory note to the Springfield, Illinois company, which then attempted to reassert its water rights and possession of the dam site.
That scheme was superseded by one pursued by another group of speculators, the Appleton Land and Water Company of Los Angeles, led by P. D. Hatch. Hatch’s plan was to construct a dam much closer to the ultimate source of the water, more than 11 miles above the Victor reservoir, to not only control the flow of the Mojave River itself but to reroute a major portion of the water flow coming northward down the slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains in flumes and aqueducts eastward on the other side of Hesperia.
At that time, both wells and the Mojave River were being tapped by a handful of farmers who planted non-citrus orchards in what would eventually become known as Apple Valley.
In the 1890s, hundreds of acres in Hesperia had been converted to vineyards, which yielded fruit utilized as much for raisins as wine.
Simultaneously, up in the San Bernardino Mountains, the Arrowhead Reservoir Company had formed. That company’s goal was in no small part crosswise of what were the intentions of the Appleton Land and Water Company and other speculators in the desert, in that it had designs to dam up the water at a spot in the mountains and then divert the water through a tunnel to be dug and blasted out through the mountains southward to irrigate San Bernardino, Highland, Redlands, Colton and other growing communities well removed from the Victor Valley.
These competing designs and claims on the Mojave River’s water intensified in the late 1890s.
In 1899, Gifford Pinchot, head of the U.S. Division of Forestry, which would later become the United States Forest Service, personally came through the Victor Valley during a tour of California and its vast undeveloped wildlands. Upon his return to Washington, he commissioned a comprehensive survey of the Mojave River watershed. After President William McKinley was succeeded by the more conservation-minded Theodore Roosevelt, the Newlands Reclamation Act, authored by congressman Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, was passed by Congress in 1902, funding irrigation projects for the arid lands of the American West.
The act’s passage set off a second round of even more intensive and bitter legal battles between the Arrowhead Reservoir Company and nearly all of the water interests along the Mojave River. The Hesperia Land and Water Company, led by its then-president, W. A. Field, in both legal and bureaucratic filings maintained that the Arrowhead Reservoir Company’s proposed project would deplete, obstruct or eradicate the natural flow of water into the Mojave River.
Simultaneously, a group of small stakes West Coast investors who were backed by a syndicate of larger stakeholders from the East Coast assembled and headed by James Westwater of Ohio, employed Arthur E. Poole of Los Angeles, whose brother Charles was an engineer working on the city of Los Angeles’ Owens River Aqueduct, to purchase options on the properties and ranches lying along the lower Mojave River. By these purchases, Poole secured the lion’s share of water rights along the Mojave River through the Victor Valley, including the property that had been intended as dam and reservoir sites in the area. In 1904, the Arrowhead Reservoir Company commenced construction of a dam in the mountains.
In early 1906, Poole and Westwater announced they intended to initiate by July 1906 the construction of a dam in the Victor Valley along the Mojave River that would be used for both irrigation and power generation. By that summer, Westwater’s East Coast co-investors were expressing doubts about any large projects in California in the wake of the San Francisco Earthquake. As Westwater’s access to capital dried up and Poole failed to make good on promissory notes he had provided to secure property along the river, the duo ultimately were unable to retain control of any of the river bank property or the attendant water rights.
Over the next two-and-a-half years, The Arrowhead Reservoir Company continued to assert its Mojave River Basin water claims, making renewals on them every two months. But during the same time frame, Field and his Hesperia Land and Water Company claimed to have indisputable possession or control over 33,000 acres bordering the river. Field marshaled his company’s filing for one million miner’s inches (equal to 1.5 million cubic feet of water per minute) on both forks of the Mojave, which predated the Arrowhead Reservoir Company’s competing claims by more than two years, to assert that his company’s rights to the disputed water eclipsed the rights Arrowhead adduced. The Hesperia Land and Water Company had consistently utilized 5,000 inches of water from the East Fork every year for two decades, establishing, Field maintained, an inviolable right that would legally preclude the Arrowhead Reservoir Company or any other entity from diverting the Mojave River’s water away from the desert.
In 1909, a slew of other riparian owners along the Mojave filed suits against the Arrowhead Reservoir Company to prevent the diversion of the San Bernardino Mountain water away from the Mojave River Basin. While these suits were pending, the California Supreme Court entered a judgment in a case in the San Joaquin Valley involving a similar proposed rechanneling of water from its natural drainage area which barred such diversions where they would negatively impact existing agricultural operations.
Thereafter, the company’s subsidiary, the Arrowhead Lake Company, pursued transforming the once-contemplated reservoir site into a resort, completing that project, which had only minimal impact on the flow of water northward into the Mojave Desert, in 1922.
In October 1913, a San Francisco corporation, of which J. R. Wilbur was president, Ray K. Barrows vice president and A. L. Dahl secretary and treasurer, filed an application at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Forestry Service for a right-of-way to dig a tunnel twenty miles long through a portion of the San Bernardino Mountains to divert flood waters from the Mojave River to provide power and irrigation to citrus orchards in and around the cities of San Bernardino, Redlands,  Riverside and that vicinity, where water would be used for citrus groves. One of the corporation’s board members was A. E. Boynton, at that time the speaker pro tem of the California State Senate. Wilbur’s corporation proposed locating a reservoir for the water at Victorville and a powerhouse to be driven by the gravity-fed water in San Bernardino.
Opposition to that undertaking involving the Victor Chamber of Commerce and local agricultural interests formed. The Victor Chamber of Commerce reclamation committee, led by its chairman, John D. Reavis, moved, according to a report in the Victor News-Herald, “to retain the most competent water attorney and engineer available” and immediately filed a protest with the government against the granting of a permit for right-of-way for a tunnel to divert water from the Victor Valley’s watershed to the San Bernardino Valley  “on the grounds that it is contrary to law.”  The tunnel project was not undertaken.
In 1921, the city of Pasadena filed with the California Water Commission to divert Mojave River water to Los Angeles County, spurring the Mojave River Irrigation District to take action to ensure that water rights along the river be secured by interests which would not allow the water to be appropriated by irrigation or municipal uses outside the local area. In the spring of 1922, the Mojave River Irrigation District asked a judge to set for trial the district’s request for condemnation of the Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Company’s land holdings along the Mojave River, which had gone unused since 1909, when the Arrowhead Reservoir & Power Company had abandoned its plans to divert a large portion of Mojave River water southward. Throughout late 1921 and early 1922, the Mojave Irrigation District along with a collection of Victor Valley residents lobbied San Bernardino County officials to use the authority of the county to oppose the city of Pasadena’s effort. In June 1922, interests in San Bernardino, in apparent reaction to Pasadena’s effort to secure water from the Mojave River, undertook an effort to divert an annual flow of 2,000 inches of water from Lake Arrowhead and an additional 4,000 inches from Deep Creek to San Bernardino, Redlands, Colton, Rialto and other cities south of the Cajon Pass.
In November 1926, a dispute within the Victor Valley over the use and monopolization of Mojave River water erupted when land owners along the lower Mojave River, objecting to the proposed use of river water in the Apple Valley region, filed suit to test the validity of the state water commission’s granting of a permit to the Mojave Irrigation District to impound the headwaters of the Mojave and use that supply in Apple Valley for agricultural purposes. The suit alleged the use of the water in Apple Valley would cause a shortage in the lower region.
In August 1927, sixteen cities located in Riverside, Orange, Los Angles and lower San Bernardino counties organized to form a metropolitan water district to undertake a $150,000,000 project to bring water to thirsty Southern California from the Colorado River. The effort represented a landmark in terms of lessening, though not eliminating, the threat that entities outside of the Victor Valley would divert Mojave River water away from the High Desert.
In December 1930, residents of the Victor Valley were shocked to learn that Ralph E. Swing, the attorney who was hired to represent the county before the state water commission to resist the city of Pasadena’s attempts to appropriate water rights along the Mojave River in 1921 and who was now a state senator, was assisting the city of San Bernardino in its filing to obtain 1,000 inches of surplus water in the Mojave river basin and transport it through the mountains in a three-mile tunnel and an aqueduct as part of a $3 million project to deliver the water to San Bernardino, Riverside, Rialto and Redlands to provide irrigation for citrus groves. The proposal also entailed plans to utilize the water to generate electrical power at a powerhouse in Devil Canyon as well as a 160- foot high dam near the junction of the east and west fork of the Mojave River to impound water at an elevation of 3,800 feet. The Victor Valley Chamber of Commerce immediately went on record against the project proposal.
Less than two weeks later the chamber hastily formed a committee composed of E. E. Kiggins of Oro Grande, L. G. Merritt of Helendale,  T. J. Thomas of Apple Valley, Frank Hubbard and C. M. Moon of Victorville with Judge J. P. Hoffman elected as temporary chairman, to formulate some method of organization which would guard against encroachments on Mojave River water.
In  February 1931, the Mojave River Irrigation District filed with the California Department of Water Resources to divert 85,000 acre feet per annum from Deep Creek and the West Fork  tributary to the Mojave River for irrigation and domestic purposes onto 26,878 acres. This application was made as part of an effort to protect the Mojave River basin and forestall any diversion to the Mojave River water south of the mountains by establishing rights of priority over any applications which were to follow, subject to existing rights.  The same month, 23 ranchers, well owners, riparian rights holders and other citizens formed the Mojave River Valley Protective Association with Judge J.P. Hoffman as chairman to safeguard the waters of the Mojave River from diversion. The association engaged attorneys Grant Holcomb and Byron Waters to protect its members’ water rights.
In  June 1931 the Mojave River Valley Protective Association lodged a petition to the county board of supervisors for an election for the formation of a county water district, resulting in just such an election on August 21, at which the creation of a local water district passed by a vote of 183 to 41.
On August 4, 1932, the state filed a suit to cancel the rights of the Arrowhead Lake Company granted 18 years previously. According to the action, the rights in question pertained to the proposed construction of a 150-foot dam on the Mojave River for irrigating the 35,000 acres of land near Victorville. The state asserted in its suit that the Arrowhead Company failed to carry out provisions of the agreement on which the rights were granted, specifically undertaking the $3.25 million dam and reservoir construction project.
In December 1933 the directors of the Orange County Water District in Tustin advanced a $6 million-to-$10 million plan to purchase land along the Mojave River and develop a water project  near Victorville and divert water to the Santa Ana River in Orange County.
While the Orange County water officials alleged in excess of 100,000 acre feet of water from the Mojave River was available annually and that only 6,000 acres in the Victor Valley were being irrigated with the available water, water owners and the communities in the Mojave Basin held a different viewpoint regarding the surplus water of the Mojave River and its availability for any use on the south side of the mountains.  On Sunday, January 7, 1934, the Mojave Basin Protective Association authorized the expediting of conservation measures on the Mojave River, including the construction of dams at several points, as part of an effort to utilize the water locally and stave off the attempts of outside interests to seize a portion of the river’s water.
In July 1934, as the High Desert was gripped by a drought and Mojave Valley farmers and stockmen were applying through the county to the federal government for drought relief funding, Orange County water interests renewed their effort, which had lain dormant for several months, to divert to their county a portion of the Mojave River’s flow.  At a meeting in Anaheim held under the auspices of the Orange County Chamber of Commerce, a resolution seeking an engineering survey to determine the cost of such a venture and the amount of water it might yield was passed.
In December 1934, before the interests in Orange and Riverside counties could themselves appropriate Mojave River water, the city of Los Angeles filed for 400,000 cubic feet of water from Seeley Creek, a tributary of the West Fork of the Mojave. Los Angeles’ stated intention for the water was to use it for domestic purposes at the “city playground at Camp Seeley,” owned by the city of Los Angeles. By establishing water usage there, the city of Los Angeles could at some indefinite future date discontinue its local utilization of the water and then divert a like amount to Los Angeles.
On January 12 1935 the Mojave Basin Protective Association met at the office of A. S. Amaral to ready protests of the Los Angeles filing and the anticipated filing by the Riverside, Orange and lower San Bernardino county interests.
On February 16, 1935 a meeting of the Mojave River Basin Protective Association was held in Helendale and an effort was initiated to organize all of the territory along the Mojave River from Yermo to the mountains into a county water district, incorporating the communities of Barstow, Helendale, Oro Grande, Victorville and Hesperia.
On June 12, 1935, the California state assembly, at the importuning of Assemblyman Gordon Corwin, amended legislation related to the Orange County Water District, Senate Bill 112, to prevent Mojave River basin water from being diverted to the headwaters of the Santa Ana River for use in Orange County. As originally drafted and passed by the state senate, Senate Bill 112 granted the Orange County Water District the power of eminent domain in areas beyond its jurisdiction, permitting that entity to condemn lands and water rights along the Mojave River. Though the measure passed the senate, it was amended and eventually defeated in the assembly.
In September 1935, a report by irrigation engineer Harry F. Blaney and irrigation economist Paul A. Ewing made at the request of the Riverside Water Company and other water organizations in Orange and Riverside counties entitled Utilization of the Waters of the Mojave River became public. Although the Orange County and Riverside County interests had hoped the report would serve them in an effort to appropriate a portion of the High Desert’s water, Blaney and Ewing made findings that any substantial diversion of water from the Mojave River at its headwaters would produce a small deficiency between the forks and Victorville, some deficiency between Victorville and Bastow and very likely a substantial deficiency below Barstow. According to the report, “Any diversion of Mojave River water outside its watershed should be made only after care is taken of the normal agricultural, domestic and industrial needs (including those of railroads) of the valley itself. The valley’s rights should stand in the preferred position, and outside claimants should be satisfied with what is left. Hence, provision should be made to protect the present water needs of the valley before the diversion is begun in any year.”
In the first week of October 1935, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County District Attorney James L. King filed upon all the surplus water of the Mojave River with the proviso that the filing would within sixty days be turned over to a water district to be formed within the Mojave River Basin.  The action was taken in response to reports that water interests in Riverside and Orange counties were planning to file on a portion of the Mojave River’s water for diversion into the Santa Ana River.
On October 9, 1935 a meeting of Orange and Riverside county’s governmental officials and public and private water interests was held in Riverside. San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Arthur Doran and district attorney James L. King attended the meeting to represent San Bernardino County. Also present were San Bernardino mayor C. T. Johnson and a number of water users from the Mojave basin. Discussion at the meeting centered around a report by federal engineers regarding the amount of water that might be diverted from the Mojave River. After the San Bernardino County contingent went on record as being opposed to any diversion of Mojave River water to Riverside or Orange counties, the other attendees of the meeting protested the San Bernardino County delegation’s continued participation, and Doran and King left the confab.
On January 21, 1936 voters within the boundaries of the proposed 60,000-acre Mojave River County Water District between Victorville and Barstow ratified its creation 149 to 28.
In 2001, Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. proposed a project calling for pumping water from the Colorado River during wet years, storing it in an underground aquifer beneath the Cadiz Valley in the Eastern Mojave, and selling as much as 60,000 acre-feet of the native groundwater and Colorado River water mix to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) in Los Angeles during dry years. That proposal was ultimately rejected by the Metropolitan Water District’s board of directors after conservationists raised concerns over possible environmental damage.
In 2009, the city of Riverside proposed laying claim to a considerable amount of Santa Ana River water at the south end of San Bernardino County through an undertaking to be known as the Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.
Through its public utilities division, Riverside has plans to construct a 700-foot wide dam extending across the Santa Ana River north of the Riverside County Line on 30 acres of unincorporated San Bernardino County land owned by the city of Riverside just beyond the outskirts of Colton to capture the river’s flow and provide a ready supply of millions of gallons of water that originates in the San Bernardino Mountains to be conveyed by aqueducts or pipes to areas of the city of Riverside’s choosing for use in recharging groundwater basins.
The part concrete, part vulcanized rubber  dam, has been designed to be retracted, i.e., deflated, at will to allow the river to continue its southward flow.
Plans are that the $15 million project’s cost would be borne entirely by the city of Riverside. The undertaking would be of primary benefit to the Western Municipal Water District in Riverside, which is to be the recipient of over 80 percent of the water to be collected by the dam. The city of Riverside intends to sell some of the water to the city of Colton and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The project has not yet proceeded to completion and Riverside is yet working on the environmental impact report for the project, according to Kevin Milligan, the chief financial officer and interim chief assistant general manager of Riverside’s utility division.

TWENTYNINE PALMS — The head of the county agency overseeing jurisdictional issues has given indication that the Twentynine Palms Water District’s 54-year run operating the Twentynine Palms Fire Department will very likely end at the beginning of the 2013-14 fiscal year.
Twenty-nine years before the city of Twentynine Palms incorporated in 1987, the water district extended its responsibilities to include fire protection after the California Department of Forestry ceased providing local fire service in 1958.
A quarter century after Twentynine Palm’s incorporation, the water district remains an independent agency. It does not appear that will be the case much longer.
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which oversees jurisdictional issues throughout the county, conducts community service reviews every five years. In a report dated May 7, 2012, LAFCO executive officer Kathleen Rollings-McDonald, assistant executive officer Samuel Martinez and project manager Michael Tuerpe stated that the demands of operating the fire district are now outrunning the water district’s funding ability.
According to Rollings-McDonald, Martinez and Tuerpe, their review of the water district’s financial books “identifies a significant deficiency in funding” such that “the water district’s fire operations are unsustainable as presently financed.”
While the fire department has been providing fire protection to all areas within Twentynine Palms’ city limits since the city’s incorporation, the city does not contribute to, participate in or subsidize the fire department’s operational budget. Theoretically, fire department finances are independent of the water district, with water rates totally devoted to the provision of water to customers. Fire department operations are defrayed entirely by a special tax on properties throughout the service area of the department.
The water district’s boundaries and the city limits are not coterminous, as the water district serves areas outside the city as well as within it.
In 2007, the city and the district began earnest discussion of annexing the fire department to the city, and formed a Joint Agency Fire Department Committee to look into the matter. On June 9, 2009, then-city manager Michael Tree told the council that if the transfer were to be made it would be best to do it totally and in one fell swoop rather than in stages. But because of complications with regard to the authority for the special tax and the formula for the distribution of tax revenues, as well as the discrepancy between the city limits and the district’s service area, the city elected to forego the takeover.
In April, residents within the water district’s service area were presented with a ballot initiative, Measure H, which would have levied a special fire service assessment on all water district customers. The voters rejected that initiative. The fire department’s only alternative to balance its books at this point, according to fire chief Jim Thompson, is to shutter one of its two fire stations, either the one in downtown Twentynine Palms or the one on Lear Avenue which provides first response for most of the unincorporated county area within the department’s jurisdiction.
Rollings-McDonald on May 24 told the water district’s board members that the district would have to overcome the financial challenges facing the fire department, or cede control of the department to another entity by July 1, 2013. She said the water district could either on its own spin the downtown station off to the city of Twentynine Palms and the Lear Avenue station to the county fire division and thereby surrender the special tax to both of those entities or in the alternative invite the county fire division to expand its sphere of influence and annex the water district’s territory for the purpose of providing fire service, complete with an arrangement to have the county inherit the special tax.
While the city does not seem inclined to annex the fire department in total, if forced to take on the downtown station it could employ its own firefighters to man it or contract with the county or the California Division of Forestry, also known as Cal Fire.
Unless some windfall provides the water district with the necessary funding to keep the fire department, the district will have to undertake at its own expense drafting a transference plan, obtaining public input on the plan as well as feedback from other agencies to be involved or impacted, hold public hearings including one before LAFCO, and apply with LAFCO, at a minimum price of $15,400, to process its application for transferring jurisdiction

By Gail Fry
Staff Writer

A number of current and former office holders, their associates and other politically connected figures, including ones currently facing charges in San Bernardino County’s corruption scandal, siphoned off money from the now shuttered Adelanto Charter Academy, documents obtained by the Sentinel show.
The Adelanto Charter Academy was chartered by the Adelanto School District on August 19, 2009. A little over a year later, in November 2010, an audit cataloging significant shortcomings in the school’s operations was released, and on May 17, 2011, the  Adelanto School District revoked the charter it had granted to the Adelanto Charter Academy (ACA).    ACA immediately appealed the decision to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, who upheld the Adelanto School District’s decision on August 1, 2011.   ACA appealed the decision to the California Department of Education and continued to operate until notified on April 17, 2012, that “your administrative remedies are exhausted” and “any further appeal of revocation must be sought in a court of local jurisdiction.”

Bill Postmus

During the school’s operation, indicted and now convicted former San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus, current Hesperia School District board member Anthony Riley, indicted former California Charter Academy founder Charles Steven Cox, Peggy Baker (Cox’s sister-in-law), San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt’s campaign fund, Mitzelfelt’s field representative Jessie Flores, indicted former assistant assessor Adam Aleman and indicted local businessman John “Dino” DeFazio all received money from the Adelanto Charter Academy or entities deriving money from the academy.

Brad Mitzelfelt

Additionally, Adelanto Charter Academy paid what appears to have been over-market rates for rent to the Boys and Girls Club of the Victor Valley.
THE PLAYERS
In February 2009, Bill Postmus resigned as San Bernardino County Assessor under a cloud of drug use and allegations of misconduct, leaving him without a regular paycheck. He had been arrested for drug possession in January 2009 and was indicted on political corruption charges in February 2010.
On March 28, 2011, Postmus reached a plea agreement with prosecutors, entering guilty pleas to having a conflict of interest, conspiring to accept a bribe, and misappropriating public funds, and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in providing information and testimony in a criminal investigation and prosecution relating to the county’s $102 million settlement with the Colonies Partners in 2006, which Postmus voted upon when he was a county supervisor prior to his moving into the assessor’s post.
Charles Steven Cox, founder of the now defunct California Charter Academy (CCA) is currently facing criminal charges for grand theft, embezzlement and tax evasion.
Cox’s criminal charges stem from his involvement in CCA where it is alleged $23 million was misappropriated according to an “Extraordinary Audit of the California Charter Academy” prepared by MGT of America dated April 14, 2005 and commissioned by the California Superintendent of Public Instruction.
While Postmus was chairman of the board of supervisors, the board approved $101,999 in funds to be distributed to CCA.  Yet, according to CCA teachers, students at the charter academy had not been supplied with books with which to study.
According to the MGT audit, Postmus served on two of CCA’s boards from 1999 until 2001 and during that time accepted campaign contributions for his campaign for the board of supervisors in 2000, and later received money from Cox during his  2004 reelection campaign.
Inexplicably, Postmus has never faced any criminal charges as a result of his involvement in the California Charter Academy.

Dino DeFazio

Dino DeFazio, owner of D & D Real Estate and other real estate businesses, is currently facing criminal charges for perjury for his testimony before the San Bernardino County Grand Jury.  DeFazio is a friend of Postmus and a business partner with him in a real estate company called Tri-Land, Inc.
Jessie Flores, field representative for San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, received funds from the Adelanto Charter Academy as owner of Diamond Limousines and officer of Professional Charter Management, Inc. Flores has a restricted real estate license under D & D Real Estate, according to the California Department of Real Estate.
Adam Aleman, formerly assistant assessor, in a plea bargain pled guilty to vandalism, presenting altered/false public documents and false claims.  Aleman destroyed Postmus’ computer hard drive when district attorney’s office investigators were seeking it during the investigation of Postmus’ administration of the assessor’s office.
Hesperia Unified School District Trustee Anthony Riley received money from the Adelanto Charter Academy.
All of these individuals are shown in supporting documentation as related to contracts with the Adelanto Charter Academy while it was operating under the aegis of the Adelanto School District.
THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VICTOR VALLEY
In January 2007, Postmus was installed as San Bernardino County Assessor while Mitzelfelt, who had formerly been Postmus’ chief of staff, was appointed as his replacement on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.
In August 2007, Mitzelfelt allocated $650,000 of county elective budget funds to the Boys and Girls Club of the Victor Valley (BGVV) to purchase a 4,300 square foot building located at 17537 Montezuma in Adelanto from Arrowhead Properties, IV, LLC, of whom Mitchel E. Pullman is a member.
BGVV purchased the building in September of 2007 for a sales price of $625,000.  The additional funds were used to remodel the kitchen for an alleged cost of $35,000, a source with a comprehensive knowledge of the charter school’s operations told the Sentinel. “They could not have spent that much on the kitchen,” the source said.
In May 2008, BGVV, a nonprofit corporation, borrowed $100,000 from The Mitchel E. Pullman Living Trust.  The deed of trust shows the recorded document is to be mailed to Sentry Home Loan at 187 E. Wilbur Road #12, Thousand Oaks, CA  91360.
Sentry Home Loans is a company owned by Helene Harris, president of Boys and Girls Club of Victor Valley and ACA board member. In October 2008, Sentry Home Loans arranged for the $100,000 note to be sold to private parties.
In March 2008, Mitzelfelt ensured BGVV received $399,780 in grant money from the city of Victorville as part of then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California Gang Reduction, Intervention and Prevention initiative.
On February 11, 2009, Mitzelfelt awarded $20,000 in gang suppression funds to BGVV and on May 22, 2012, Mitzelfelt allocated $15,000 to the Adelanto Boys & Girls Club.
According to reliable information, Greater High Desert Lawncare Services does all of the landscaping for Harris’ properties, including upkeep of the Adelanto Charter Academy campus.   Greater High Desert Lawncare Services are shown on Flores’ 2009 and 2010 700 forms (statements of economic interests).
There is no record of Greater High Desert Lawncare Services either under fictitious business names at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office or at the California Secretary of State website.
On October 1, 2009, the Boys and Girls Club of the Victor Valley started receiving rental payments from ACA for the use of two 300 square foot classrooms and the 1,500 square foot kitchen in its building located at 17537 Montezuma in Adelanto.
THE ADELANTO CHARTER SCHOOL PIGGYBANK
On August 19, 2009, the Adelanto School District approved the charter of Adelanto Charter Academy.  According to the previously referenced source, Cox prepared the articles of incorporation and was behind the scenes advising Postmus on the formation of ACA.
On October 1, 2009, the Boys and Girls Club started receiving rental payments from Adelanto Charter Academy in the amount of $2,000 for the month of November and December. In January 2010 the rent increased to $3,000, in February and March the rent increased to $3,200 and by April 2010 ACA was paying rent and utilities in the amount of $3,474, May rent and utilities were $3,354, June’s rent and utilities were $3,449, those for July were $3,454 and in August of 2010 rent and utilities for the school ran to $3,200. In September 2010 the rent was $4,429 and in October 2010 ACA paid $2,000 to BGVV. On November 16, ACA gave the Boys and Girls Club a donation of $100.
The rent and utility payments totaled $33,560 for 13 months  for 1,500 square feet of space, averaging $2,582 a month and $.58 per square foot for space in the city of Adelanto, a depressed area.  The Sentinel’s source said Jessie Flores initially represented that they would not have to pay rent to hold classes at BGVV.
Helene Harris, an Adelanto Charter Academy board member, and her husband Hendon Harris are founders of the Boys and Girls Club of the Victor Valley.
Additionally, ACA paid Diamond Limousines $275.00 for a Calico Run in October of 2009.  Diamond Limousine is shown as a “suspended” corporation with David Calderone as agent for service of process.
Jessie Flores’ 700 forms filed in March 2008 and April 2009 show him owning the Greater High Desert Lawncare Services, Diamond Limousine and receiving income from D & D.  Jessie Flores’ 700 forms filed in April 2010 show him owning Diamond Limousines and receiving income from D & D, owned by Dino DeFazio.
Jessie Flores 700 forms for 2011 and 2012 indicate only his salary for his position as field representative for San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt.
The Adelanto Charter Academy paid $35,000 during 2010 in loan payments to Kardi Homes, a limited liability company owned by Dino DeFazio.
Peggy Baker, Charles Steven Cox’s sister-in-law, received $4,000 on November 23, 2010, for teacher training from ACA.  Baker was named in the MGT of America extraordinary audit of the California Charter Academy as related to Charles Steven Cox.
According to records obtained by the Sentinel, the Adelanto Charter Academy contracted with Professional Charter Management, Inc. to perform administrative services in return for 15 percent of all ACA revenues.
According to the California Secretary of State, Professional Charter Management, Inc. is a dissolved corporation with Jessie Flores as its chief executive officer and Dino DeFazio in the capacities of chief financial officer and secretary  and Kari Murdock as agent for service of process.  An individual who wishes to remain anonymous informed the Sentinel Murdock is the niece of Charles Steven Cox.
On December 14, 2010, Jessie Flores filed a certificate of dissolution stating, “The corporation has not conducted any business from the time of the filing of the articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State” and “The corporation acquired no known assets.”  Jessie Flores signed the form under penalty of perjury.
An email from C. Steven Cox addressed to Postmus, DeFazio and Jessie Flores, with the subject “Invoice from Professional Charter Management, Inc.” dated January 19, 2010, contained an attached invoice for “administrative service fees” for $11,965.65.
An email obtained by the Sentinel states, “hi my name is Bill Postmus, Jr, partner with Professional Mgmt Inc.” and “I’m attempting to make sure we are up to date with everything payment wise.”  Another email from Postmus states, “Its so sad to see you act in such a way.  I have NO $$$ left to my name and this will help get me through another week and you’re being an obstructionist.”
Records provided by ACA show Professional Charter Management, Inc. was paid $11,965.65 on January 21, 2010, a month and a week after it was dissolved.
According to records obtained by the Sentinel, the Adelanto Charter Academy contracted with Educational Development, Inc. to perform administrative services in return for 5 percent of all ACA revenues from September 1, 2009 until June 30, 2014.
According to the Arizona Corporation Commission, Educational Development, Inc. is not in good standing and dissolved in April 2008.  The articles of incorporation indicated DeFazio and Aleman as directors.
Another email from C. Steven Cox addressed to Postmus, DeFazio and  Jessie Flores with the subject “Invoice from Educational Development, Inc.” dated January 19, 2010 contained an attached invoice for “development fees” for $3,988.55.
Records obtained by the Sentinel from the Adelanto Charter Academy show ACA paid Educational Development, Inc., $2,624 on November 5, 2010 and $3,000 on December 6, 2010.
The Sentinel’s source said Educational Development, Inc. and Professional Charter Management, Inc. “didn’t do anything for the money.”
Other emails reveal the involvement of William T. Flores, Vice President of the ACA board, who according to the source is Jessie Flores’ nephew, as well as that of Russell Blewett, who is now the mayor of Hesperia.  In an email addressed to William Flores, Helene Harris, Dino DeFazio and Jen Ruiz dated October 28, 2010, right before Blewett’s successful election, Blewett resigned from ACA board of directors where he had been president.

Anthony Riley

Anthony Riley, a Hesperia Unified School District trustee, was paid $6,500 on January 15, 2010,  ostensibly to put ACA in touch with Ron Griffith, director of preschool services for the county and to assure that 20 to 30 kindergartner students would be enrolled at the academy. “He didn’t do anything for the money” according to the Sentinel’s source.
CAMPAIGN FUNDS
San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt received $10,900 in  contributions for his campaign for San Bernardino County Supervisor from Hendon Harris and related entities from March 2008 until December 2011.
In Mitzelfelt’s bid for United States Congress in the 2012 campaign season, Hendon and Helene Harris have provided his campaign with $20,000 in contributions.

The California Department of Finance has rejected the contention of officials overseeing the development of  San Bernardino International Airport that they are due $432 million in property tax revenue over the next decade.
The San Bernardino International Airport Authority, a joint powers agency involving the county of San Bernardino and the cities of San Bernardino, Highland, Loma Linda and Colton devoted to the conversion of the former Norton Air Force Base into a civilian airport, and the Inland Valley Development Authority, which includes the county and the cities of San Bernardino, Loma Linda and Colton in an effort to promote the development of the property around the airport, both maintain they should be exempt from the provisions of state legislation passed last year shuttering the state’s county and municipal redevelopment agencies.
In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown induced the state legislature to pass a law, ABX1 26, that called for the elimination of redevelopment agencies and for money normally passed through to them by the state to be utilized for education and law enforcement funding. The law dissolvied redevelopment agencies and enjoined them from entering into contracts with enforceable obligations after June 28, 2011.
ABX1 26 and its companion law, ABX1 27, were challenged by a coalition of cities but upheld by the California Supreme Court, and the state’s redevelopment agencies were closed out effective February 1. Part of the legislation shelving the redevelopment agencies called for cities to create for themselves or have the county create for them a successor agency to  oversee and wind down that agency’s functions and dispose of its enforceable obligations by scheduling and executing the payments needed to discharge those obligations. The legislation also called for an oversight board to work in concert with each county’s auditor-controller and the California Department of Finance to oversee the successor agency through the dissolution process.
The boards for the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, known by its acronym SBIAA, and the Inland Valley Economic Development Authority,  which goes by IVDA, have argued that since they are joint powers authorities dedicated to the reuse of what was formerly federal military property, they are not municipal redevelopment agencies and, accordingly, not subject to ABX1 26 and ABX1 27.
SBIAA and IVDA maintain the property tax money from the area around the former air base should continue to be available to it and be used to defray the $949.5 million in debt and obligations those agencies have accumulated in the airport conversion effort so far. IVDA and SBIAA issued hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to fund improvements to the facility and the area surrounding it. Those bonds were sold to investors under the assumption that the infrastructure to be purchased with the bond proceeds would lead to the creation of an aerodrome with operational revenue, and together with property tax revenue increases enough money would be generated to make timely payments to the bondholders.
SBIAA and IVDA officials maintain that by being allowed to proceed with the airport’s development, they will ensure that those revenue streams remain in tact and all obligations will be met. Those agencies told the state Department of Finance they believe they are legally eligible to remain in place and that they intended to bring in roughly $432 million in property taxes over the next ten years and had committed $22 million of that toward road improvements and the rest for improvements and operations at the airport.
In a terse response, the state has informed the authorities that since they had no specific contracts related to the $432 million, they have no legitimate claim to the projected property tax revenue, as the money was secured only by an agency board resolution.
At press time, IVDA and SBIAA officials, led by executive director A.J. Wilson were scrambling to appeal the Department of Finance’s ruling while simultaneously laying down the basis for a lawsuit against the state if it does not perpetuate the bond financing arrangements for airport improvements.
In addition to the bond financing, IVDA and SBIAA have been party to successful applications for Federal Aviation Administration grants and other federal funds. The expectation of the delivery of the  $432 million in property taxes to the agencies was intrinsic to arrangements made for the takeover of the base and failure to deliver on their financial  obligations could lead to the federal government reclaiming the airport or suing IVDA and SBIAA and their constituent agencies, according to Wilson. Both IVDA and SBIAA would we vulnerable as well to actions by the bondholders and the bond underwriters, he said. Moreover, the state action could compromise the bonds’ nontaxable status.
A provision of ABX1 26 is that any legal action contesting it has to be filed in Sacramento Superior Court. IVDA and SBIAA did just that in April, seeking a restraining order in an effort to prevent the state from cataloging IVDA and SBIAA as redevelopment agencies. A determination in that matter has yet to be rendered. IVDA and SBIAA are now perched to seek yet another restraining order blocking the state from confiscating any of the property tax money IVDA and SBIAA maintain are due them.

TWENTYNINE PALMS — With an acknowledged degree of trepidation, Twentynine Palms is proceeding with a cutting-edge legal strategy to outmaneuver the state in wresting back $31 million in bond proceeds that were seemingly foreclosed upon by the state when it shuttered municipal redevelopment agencies last year.
City officials believe that the law the state legislature passed in 2011 may be trumped by federal securities regulations, meaning the money the Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency bonded for last year must be utilized only for the purpose that bondholders were told the money would be applied toward.
All of California’s cities were forced to phase out their redevelopment authorities, which used a variety of financing mechanisms to eliminate blight and spur economic development. Pursuant to two bills, ABX1 26 and ABX1 27,  put forth by Governor Jerry Brown and passed by the legislature last year, redevelopment agencies were closed out and their funding routed to law enforcement and education.
Both ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were challenged by a coalition of cities but upheld by the California Supreme Court. Effective February 1, all municipal redevelopment agencies were dissolved. Part of the legislation called for cities to create for themselves or have the county create for them a successor agency to each former redevelopment agency which would oversee and wind down the defunct agency’s functions and dispose of any enforceable obligations by scheduling and executing the payments needed to discharge those obligations. The legislation also called for an oversight board to work in concert with each county’s auditor-controller and the California Department of Finance to oversee the successor agency through the dissolution process.
In 2011, while the redevelopment agency dissolution legislation was being considered in Sacramento, the Twentynine Palms City Council, which doubled as the city’s redevelopment agency board, issued two tax allocation bonds for a downtown revitalization undertaking known as Project Phoenix, which is to include a community center, a 250-seat theater, classrooms, a civic plaza, a park, a paseo, residential units, a wastewater treatment plant, and improvements to the downtown fire station. That bond money was made available before the law went into effect but was never expended.
At the May 22 Twentynine Palms City Council meeting, the council voted 4-1, with councilman Jay Corbin dissenting to move forward with a legal strategy formulated by city attorney A. Patrick Munoz to challenge the state’s attempt to horn in on the city’s redevelopment money.
Munoz, of the law firm Rutan & Tucker, believes he can convince a judge the non-taxable bonds issued last year created specific obligations between the city, the issuer, the bond underwriter and the bond purchasers, and as such are enforceable obligations. If the city were to hand off the bond proceeds to the state and the state were to use the money for a purpose other than what the city had specified in marketing the bonds to the bond buyers, that would constitute fraud, according to Munoz.
“If the proceeds were turned over to the state to be re-allocated for operational purposes, these proceeds would no longer be tax-exempt if they were not used for public works projects,” Munoz maintained. “That creates concerns as to whether we violated federal tax laws and federal securities laws due to promises we made to the public when we sold the bonds versus the way we’re using the bonds.”
In this way, Munoz’s strategy calls for having the successor agency lay claim to the redevelopment money and proceeding with the previously ratified redevelopment programs, including Project Phoenix. The state will have to go along with the city’s discharge plan because the bonds are enforceable obligations and the proceeds are secure, Munoz has theorized. Munoz suggested the city will have to be very precise about how the money earmarked for Project Phoenix is expended.
Munoz drafted a contract between the successor agency and the city by which the  successor agency is to  turn over the bond spending authority to the city with a directive that it go toward Project Phoenix. After the contract was presented to the council on May 22 and approved with the 4-1 vote, the oversight board took up the issue the following day, May 23, and its seven members voted unanimously to endorse a resolution to transfer their duties and obligations to administer the bond proceeds to “the city in its capacity as a municipal corporation.”
Munoz insists the dual approval of the contract by the council and the oversight board legally categorizes the bond proceeds as an enforceable obligation of the former redevelopment agency.
Munoz has been working closely with a city consultant, Rosenow Spevacek Group, in communicating with the California Department of Finance to determine the likely reaction to the city’s legal gambit. According to Rosenow Spevacek associate Matt McCleary, the California Department of Finance has been at best tentative in its response to specific questions about its interpretation of enforceable obligations under both state and federal law and whether federal securities regulations take precedence over AB X1 26, signaling the state is unsure of the strength of its own legal position.
Munoz has recommended that if the Department of Finance does not accept the contract for the Project Phoenix expenditures as legitimate, that the city and its successor redevelopment agency proceed with litigation against the state. Munoz acknowledged the strategy could entail a protracted “legal fight with the Department of Finance.”
Councilman Corbin indicated he was against the strategy on two separate grounds. He said the housing portion of Project Phoenix was not worth pursuing at this point since there is no demand for housing and that he was against engaging in costly litigation against the state. His colleagues said they too did not relish a legal battle in Sacramento, but indicated they had a case worth making.

In a preview of Upland’s 2012-13 budget for the city council, city manager Stephen Dunn said that despite a sincere effort to reallocate the city’s resources and reduce services and expenditures, his best projection is that the city will still run a $9.4 million deficit.
Dunn said efforts to rein in costs will be carried out across the board and will call for each municipal department to absorb its own obligated expenditures. Nevertheless the imposition of even more severe economies that will extend to the city’s previously sacrosanct public safety division will be inadequate in offsetting the burgeoning cost of keeping the city functioning, the city manager said.
In recent years, Dunn said, the city has faced fiscal challenges but last year was able to pare back certain non-safety related programs, defer others and reduce outlays in an amount sufficient to prevent the city from running a deficit.
Just prior to the beginning of the current 2011-12 fiscal year, in June 2011, the city council ratified a budget with a $4.7 million deficit, calling for revenues of $36 million and expenditures of $40.7 million. But two months later, after Dunn, who had served as Upland’s finance director before he was elevated to the position of city manager, took an axe to that spending plan and obtained the  resignations of the city’s longtime community development director, its public works director and human resources/risk management director and consolidated other departments, incorporated certain other economies and  cut $4.8 million out of the city’s operating costs, creating a $100,000 surplus for 2011-12.
While Dunn said he has reasonable grounds to believe that the city’s revenue will grow by $2.2 million in 2012-13, he said running the city over the same 12 months will cost   $47.6 million, incurring a $9.4 million deficit.
Dunn said the city will have obligated expenditures of $3.8 million. Futhermore, Dunn said, the city will be hit with $2.3 million in new expenditure obligations in the upcoming budget, consisting of $700,000 in raises to the members of the police department that were committed to more than two years ago, $400,000 in previously agreed-to merit increases and a $1.2 million increase in the city’s contribution to the California Public Employees Retirement System to cover the cost of pensions.
His proposed budget for 2012-13 does not contain money for restoring reserves spent in past years, does not cover the city’s deficit in its self-insurance fund, does not provide any money for economic development, and does not provide money for alleyway repair. Nor will the city replace any of the vehicles in its fleet in 2012-13.
The budget will include reduced funds for street repair, citywide concrete replacement, some repaving and the purchase of library books.
To balance the city’s budget now and in the future, Dunn said the city should consider contracting with the sheriff’s department or the city of Ontario for the provision of police services, contracting with the county, the California Division of Forestry or the city of Ontario for the provision of fire service, eliminating the police department’s SWAT team, closing or browning-out a fire station, eliminating the fire department’s paramedic program, selling the fire department’s ladder truck, reducing the city’s animal control division and its animal shelter, or closing the shelter entirely and subcontracting with another organization for animal control service. Dunn said the city could also cancel the city’s fireworks show, eliminate Upland’s recreation division, cease publication of the quarterly city newsletter, outsource the management of the library, make further reductions in the library hours, reduce street sweeping services, reduce or eliminate tree trimming services, reduce landscape maintenance services, contract out for the city’s fleet services, institute modified work schedules for operation crews and field personnel, limit stand-by personnel, and contract out for  engineering services.

Stephen Dunn

The city could also, Dunn said, reduce its legal expenses by settling or dismissing as many of the lawsuits it is presently engaged in as is reasonably possible, removing bonus provisions from executives’ contracts, reducing compensation to non-sworn personnel in the police department, reducing the vehicle fleet by eliminating take home vehicles, reducing the number of city-issued cell phones, and ending the practice of picking up employees’ shares of their pensions.
Dunn also told the council it could consider pushing the county to cut the city in on a larger share of the property tax collected within the city, as well as raising sale taxes, raising the business license tax, raising the transient occupancy tax at hotels and motels, and raising fees for a host of city services.

SAN BERNARDINO—E-commerce gargantuan Amazon is pressuring city of San Bernardino officials to provide it with sales tax springbacks as part of a deal in which the company would locate a 950,000 square foot distribution center at the Alliance California complex near San Bernardino International Airport.
The state of California imposes a 7.25 percent sales tax on all non-edible goods sold in the state. In San Bernardino County, consumers are charged an extra half cent sales tax to pay for road improvements, pursuant to Measure I first passed in 1989 and renewed by voters in 2004. The city of San Bernardino levies a .25 percent sales tax on all goods sold within its city limits. Of each 7.25 cents collected by the state in sales taxes, one cent is returned to the city or jurisdiction at the point of sale.
Amazon for years has fought various state governments over whether sales tax should be levied on its customers, who purchase goods through the company over the internet.  Last year, it relented in its struggle with the state of California, agreeing to obtain a seller’s permit from the Board of Equalization, which allows the company to make sales and collect and remit appropriate sales taxes to the state, effectively resulting in the company having to charge the 7.25 percent duty on in-state customers.
In the same time frame, Assembly Bill 155 was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. Assembly Bill 155 delayed the operative date by which internet retailers had to be collecting sales taxes until federal legislation defining what “a retailer engaged in business” in California was passed.
After on-line retailers begin collecting sales tax in Fall 2012, it is anticipated that the state will realize $316 million per year in additional sales tax revenue. Roughly half of that, it is anticipated, will come from Amazon.
Beginning this fall, Amazon will open two huge distribution centers in California. One is already set to be located in Patterson in Stanislaus County. Amazon is leaning toward locating the other in San Bernardino in a facility approaching one million square feet at the Alliance California Center.
Amazon has already used its size and leverage to broker a deal with Governor Jerry Brown by which Amazon agreed to build its warehousing and distribution centers in California rather than out of state, where the company will employ 10,000 full-time workers and as many as 25,000 seasonal workers by December 2015 in exchange for California delaying by 12 months the requirement that Amazon collect sales tax from its customers.

Patrick Morris

Amazon is using that same leverage in negotiating with San Bernardino officials, including economic development director Emil Marzullo and mayor Patrick Morris. At stake is Amazon’s commitment to locate the distribution center, which will employ at least 1,000 workers initially and as many as 4,000 workers by 2015 in San Bernardino. In return, Amazon is seeking at least 80 percent of the sales tax it is to collect at the San Bernardino operation to be routed back to it, likewise for a set period of time.
Critical in the negotiations is Amazon’s willingness to designate San Benardino as the “point of sale” for all of the merchandize delivered to customers from the San Bernardino warehouse.

Emil Marzullo

No agreement between Amazon and San Bernardino officials has been reached. Depending on how the deal is structured, Amazon could see a greater rate of sales tax returned, that is more tax sprung back, as volumes moved out of the facility increase. In this way the city could incentivize having more workers employed in San Bernardino.
San Bernardino is not new to the concept of or practice of providing sales tax springbacks. The city provides Kohl’s with springbacks pursuant to a 20-year tax-sharing agreement by which the retailer will get progressively more sales tax returned over the life of the contract.
Such arrangements are legal, under California law, but only extend to the portion of the sales tax money provided to the city and does not cover money kept by the state or Measure I funds.
“The city may enter into an agreement with a third party relating to the disposition of those funds after an allocation is made,” Casey Wells with the office of public affairs at the State Board of Equalization told the Sentinel.
Amazon will not be required to collect sales taxes on customers who do not reside in California, Wells said.
“Generally, California companies making sales to out-of-state customers are not required to collect California tax on those transactions,” Wells said. “Whether there is a use tax obligation on the purchaser depends on the state in which they reside.”

The majority of candidates in the race for First District supervisor have gone on record as being opposed to the Cadiz Water project, indicating they do not think the energetic effort to divert water from the Mojave Desert to Orange County is in the interest of their would-be constituents or the county itself.
Referred to by its proponents as the Cadiz Valley Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project but lambasted by its opponents as one that will deprive the desert of a precious resource, the undertaking is an $878 million proposal by Los Angeles-based Cadiz, Inc. to sink 34 wells into the desert and construct a 44-mile pipeline along a railroad right-of-way until it meets up with the aqueduct that carries Colorado River water to the Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan areas. That system will be used to draw an average of 50,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Cadiz Aquifer for use by  the Santa Margarita Water District, the second largest water agency in Orange County; the Three Valleys Water District, which provides water to the Pomona Valley, Walnut Valley, and Eastern San Gabriel Valley; the Golden State Water Company, which serves several communities in Southern California, including Claremont; Suburban Water Systems, which serves Covina, West Covina and La Mirada; and the Jurupa Community Services District, which serves Mira Loma in Riverside County.
The Cadiz Valley lies just south of the Marble Mountains and northeast of the Sheep Hole Mountains near the National Trails Highway. Cadiz is home to a former railroad stop along the Santa Fe line, 17 miles east of Amboy and 70 miles from Needles. Cadiz, Inc. owns or has options on 45,000 acres in and around the Cadiz Valley, 9,600 acres of which is zoned for agricultural use. That company operates an organic table grape, citrus, melon, pepper, squash, asparagus and bean growing farm on 500 acres in Cadiz, utilizing roughly 1,965 acre-feet of water per year to sustain that operation.
Cadiz has made a disputed claim to the water rights beneath 34,000 acres it has tied up in the area, and its plan calls for tapping that water supply, which is connected to other neighboring aquifers beneath land not controlled by Cadiz, Inc. Cadiz maintains it has the right to pump that water and sell it as it sees fit.
Environmentalists and many residents of the East Mojave are opposed to the project and claim the company has not established water rights beyond the 1,965-acre feet the agricultural operation uses yearly. They maintain the project will deprive the already parched desert of its most precious resource, wreak ecological devastation to the environment and allow Cadiz, Inc. to appropriate water rights it does not legally possess to commandeer water and thereby privatize a public resource.
Cadiz has arranged for the Santa Margarita Water District, which lies 217 miles from the Cadiz Valley and will be the recipient of the lion’s share of the water to be obtained under the plan, to serve as the lead agency in the environmental certification of the project. Critics of the project say this is an unacceptable conflict of interest and have already cited shortcomings in the environmental impact report, claiming that document does not accurately describe or provide a mitigation for the impact the drafting of water will have on adjacent aquifers. Environmentalists maintain that ultimately the desert’s springs, which support the region’s fragile wildlife, will dry up if such vigorous pumping is initiated. During a three-and-a-half hour hearing before the board of supervisors on May 1, they pleaded with the county board of supervisors not to have the county enter into a memorandum of understanding with Cadiz, Inc. and the Santa Margarita Water District relative to the project.
Other critics of the project maintain that diverting the region’s water resources to Orange and Los Angeles Counties will sharply curtail or eliminate any future development potential in the East Mojave.
At the May 1 San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meeting, Scott Slater, the president and general counsel for Cadiz, Inc., said the project would conserve water. The board also heard from local contractors and vendors who stand to make money by working on or supplying materials for the pipeline to be constructed.
After considering whether it should appeal to the California Office of Planning and Research to have the Santa Margarita Water District removed as the lead agency overseeing the environmental certification of the project and ultimately rejecting that option, the county board of supervisors on May 1 approved the memorandum of understanding between the county, Cadiz, Inc. the Santa Margarita Water District, and the Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company relative to the project. The Fenner Valley Mutual Water Company is a corporate entity created by and wholly owned by  Cadiz, Inc.
According to Christian Marsh, a contract attorney retained by the county to advise it on the Cadiz project, the memorandum of understanding does not give final approval to the project but puts a regime in place by which the project application being processed through the Santa Margarita Water District can be reviewed by the county, and provides the county with the authority to make an ultimate veto of the permitting of the project. Third District Supervisor Neil Derry, expressing skepticism that the Santa Margarita Water District would give proper weight to the input of San Bernardino County residents and interests during the approval process for the project, was the sole dissent in a 4-1 vote to approve the memorandum of understanding. A key vote in its support was that of First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, in whose district the Cadiz Valley lies. Mitzelfelt, who is now running for Congress, has received $48,100 in political donations from Cadiz, Inc. since 2007.
A survey of those vying to succeed Mitzelfelt in December shows none are favorably disposed to the project.
Jermaine Wright, a member of the Adelanto School District Board of Trustees who was the first of those running to declare his candidacy for First District supervisor this year, said he would not support the project.

Jermaine Wright

“My stance is that water belongs to the people of the county,” Wright said. “Private business does not have the right to take over their rights to sell it to another public entity outside of the county. We have a water shortage in the desert. That water needs to stay in San Bernardino County to offset and mitigate the use of water from elsewhere in the desert, including water that is being taken from the [Colorado] river by outside entities such as Los Angeles. Managed properly, that water will eventually provide work for people in the county. Others are ready too fast to privatize things that are held by the public for the public good.”
Bret Henry, the president of the San Bernardino County Firefighters Association who is seeking election as First District supervisor, stated, “I oppose the Cadiz Water Project and as supervisor will do my best to protect our desert resources. Water supplies in the desert are scarce and water is the backbone to life survival. So-called scientists and experts state that this project will have no impact on the water aquifer and mention they are counting water based on evaporation rates. My gut tells me this is wrong, especially since we will not know the consequences until it’s too late.

Bret Henry

“I have and will continue to support our desert and the many recreational activities it provides the people of San Bernardino County,” Henry said. “Our leaders must stand up for the people and not special interest groups who provide campaign donations.”
Another First District supervisor candidate, Apple Valley Councilman Rick Roelle, said, “My views are quite simple.  I am opposed to the shipment of Cadiz water out of the area.  Water should not be sold for profit.  It is a natural resource needed to maintain life.  The fact that the water would be shipped to the Los Angeles area is unacceptable to me.  If elected to the 1st District supervisor position, I will do everything in my power to keep the water for residents in the 1st District.

Rick Roelle

“My record as an elected official for the town of Apple Valley and a lieutenant in the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is well known,” Roelle said. “I don’t bow down to special interests, especially special interests who want to exploit our natural resources which belong in San Bernardino County.”
Another candidate for First District supervisor, Michael Orme, said, “The Cadiz Water Project concerns me since it proposes to take water – the most valuable resource we have in a desert — and transfer it to Santa Margarita. The High Desert should not be penalized for their lack of planning and growing beyond their available resource availability. Rather than taking High Desert water, the Cadiz Water Project could easily be replaced through grant funds from Prop 84, a 2006 water bond which favored urban infrastructure over rural needs.

Michael Orme

“The role of First District supervisor is to be the steward of the district and guard the resources, including environmental, of our residents, businesses and local governments,” Orme continued. “Transferring our water resource to Orange County is a blatant infringement upon the stewardship entrusted to the supervisor.”
Robert Lovingood was unwilling to make a pronouncement for or against the project. He noted that more than a decade ago Cadiz, Inc. had floated a water use and storage proposal that called for pumping water from the Colorado River into the aquifer underlying the Cadiz Valley in wet years and drawing water out of the water table in dry years.

Robert Lovingood

“That project seemed to make sense, since it would have brought water into the desert in overflow years but now they just want to drain it and sell it and use what they call surplus water. There is a storied history to the use of water in California and we wouldn’t have some of the urban areas we have if water was not taken from one place to be used in another. Inherently, water rights come with property. I am in favor of property rights. If you own property, then there is ownership of the water. Much of this issue would be controlled by the environmental impact report. There is way more to environmental impact reports today. The bottom line is this is a very complex issue and I am not informed enough to make that call.”
Requests for statements with regard to the Cadiz Water Project made to Bob Smith and Russ Blewett, two other candidates for First District supervisor, did not elicit responses.

San Bernardino Calif. (May 22) – The San Bernardino County Bar Association, a professional association of attorneys and jurists, has honored Superior Court Judge Tara Reilly with the 2012 Kaufman-Campbell Award.
The award was presented at the annual Kaufman-Campbell Awards Banquet, which was held May 17 at the San Bernardino Hilton Hotel.
The Kaufman-Campbell Award is given to judges who have served the bench with distinction while making significant contributions to the community.  Recipients typically display the highest standards of judicial excellence while showing integrity, wisdom and impartiality.
Judge Reilly joined the bar in 1989 as a new attorney, and has been an honorary (judicial) member of the San Bernardino County Bar Association since taking the bench in 1996.  Her judicial assignments have included criminal, civil, juvenile dependency and treatment courts. She is currently assigned to family law court.
I have the greatest job in the world,” Reilly said shortly before receiving the award. “Even on the bad days, and there are some, it’s still the best job in the world. It’s a constant opportunity to learn.”
Being selected as a Kaufman-Campbell Awardee is “a tremendous honor” and one of the highlights of her judicial career, Reilly said.
“I was really surprised when they told me,” she said. “Very pleased, but surprised. It’s, a huge honor. The difficult part will be living up the award.”
Reilly is a deserving recipient of the Kaufman-Campbell Award, said Michael Scafiddi, past president of the San Bernardino County Bar Association. “She’s a great judge and an even better human being. The association couldn’t have picked anyone better,” Scafiddi said.
The bar association established the Kaufman-Campbell Award in 1999 in honor of Marcus M. Kaufman, former Associate justice of the California Supreme Court, and Joseph P. Campbell, former presiding justice of the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2.