By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the January 19 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 01-19-18

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
In December, after years of controversy over Nestlé’s drafting of water from the San Bernardino Mountains which it bottles under the Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water brand name, the California Water Resources Control Board released a report indicating Nestlé has been extracting annually on average over 54 million gallons of water from Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains to which it was not entitled.
The State Water Board’s conclusion was based upon a study that found Nestlé had asserted it had water rights and was able to marshal evidence that it had the right to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year, while it was actually drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons), such that it is extracting on a yearly basis 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) of water it does not have a right to take.
Nestlé’s assertions hinge around the Swiss company’s claim that its inviolable pre-1914 water rights trace back to either a possessory claim by David Noble Smith of pre-1914 water bottling operations or rights connected to the property from which the company continues to draw water.
The Sentinel’s examination of documentation that Nestlé is relying upon in making those claims demonstrates that the Swiss company’s assumption of those rights relies on inapplicable case law and the substitution of property outside of the National Forest which was misrepresented as being within the National Forest. It thus appears Nestlé is not entitled to the 8.47 million gallons credited to it.
Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc., a corporate subsidiary of the Swiss-owned Nestlé Corporation, acquired an expired permit for a pipeline right-of-way to transport water through the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains when it bought out Perrier in 1992. Perrier had acquired the permit when it purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, formerly called Arrowhead Puritas, in 1987, at which time the permit was yet active. That permit, which expired in 1988, allowed a pipeline across the forest which transported water extracted from a significant below-ground source in the San Bernardino Mountains. In 1978, Arrowhead Puritas, without renewing the permit for transporting the harvested water from Strawberry Canyon extracted by means of boreholes and horizontal wells, applied to be allowed to continue that activity, for which it paid the U.S. Government $524 per year, a standard fee for such uses in all National Forests. The Arrowhead Drinking Water Company had assumed water drafting operations from a series of predecessors. But that assumption was based on a dubitable assertion of water extraction rights, for which no basis in the public record exists. None of the companies or their corporate predecessors has paid for the forest water it has taken.
In 1929, California Consolidated Waters Company was formed to merge Los Angeles’ three largest water bottlers and distributors of “Arrowhead Water,” “Puritas Water” and “Liquid Steam.” The property, bottling operations, water distribution and administration of Arrowhead Springs Company, Puritas of California Consumers Company and the water bottling division of Merchants Ice and Storage were all administered by California Consolidated Waters Company. Soon after, California Consolidated Waters, without having obtained any valid authorization or rights, put in place tunnels, boreholes and horizontal wells at the higher elevation of 5,200 feet at the headwaters to Strawberry Creek in Strawberry Canyon.
Charles Anthony, acting president of the Arrowhead Springs resort property and Arrowhead Springs Corporation, sold upper Strawberry Canyon water rights he did not own in the National Forest to California Consolidated Waters Company.
When Nestlé inherited the operation in Strawberry Canyon from Perrier in 1992, it continued to operate under the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company” shell and the United States Forest Service allowed Nestlé to continue to utilize the expired permit, sending its invoices for the $524 annual charge to use the “irrigation” transmission pipeline in Strawberry Canyon to the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company. It was concern over the ecological devastation this continued water extraction was having that grew into outrage, which resulted in calls for action by the National Forest Service that led to the report released in December.
Of crucial importance is that Nestlé’s water withdrawals are taking place on San Bernardino National Forest lands where water has been reserved since its founding on February 25, 1893.
Federal reserve rights and overlaying landowner groundwater rights should apply in this case. Appropriation through adverse possession, known as prescriptive rights, is not applicable to U.S. Forest lands. On record is a single adverse possession case pertaining to the San Bernardino Mountains, what is referred to as the Del Rosa Judgment, which through an adverse appropriation process, gave water rights reserved for the National Forest to the Consolidated Waters Company, a now defunct entity, to which Nestlé has now made an inappropriate claim. The company has conflated physical springs with spring water bottling law for food labeling purposes. A foreign entity, Nestlé is not a landowner of, nor in, the National Forest.
There is no documentation that Nestlé or its predecessor-in-interest had any valid water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest for Upper Strawberry Canyon or “Indian Springs” tunnels, from where the water bottled as Arrowhead Spring Water is drawn, prior to 1893, nor pre-1914 water rights. The early water bottlers associated with the Arrowhead name drew their water from sources other than Strawberry Creek or Strawberry Canyon. Some contracted water from the Arrowhead Property owners. Some bottlers of “Arrowhead water” were said to use “Los Angeles city” and “hydrant” water. There were multiple companies bottling “Arrowhead water” starting in 1909. The water bottlers and the water rights owners functioned as separate entities pre-1914, which is well-documented by archived lawsuit testimony, judgments and other sources. There is a difference between the water bottling company and the Arrowhead Property and water rights owner. This is a matter of contractual agreements versus water rights holders.
The “Arrowhead Springs Water Company” incorporated in Los Angeles had only an agreement with the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company (the water rights holder and property owner) to obtain water from Cold Water Canyon, which was then transported to Los Angeles, bottled, sold and distributed. The water bottlers obtained no water rights. They only had a water contract.
The San Bernardino National Forest was established February 25, 1893, thus any claims for water or land within the forest boundaries were required as publicly noticed in 1894. The water rights associated with the Arrowhead Springs Property ultimately stayed with the property as documented in recorded deeds at the San Bernardino County Recorders Office.
Arrowhead Springs Water Company water was from Cold Water Canyon, known as “Agua Fria,” located at the base of Arrowhead Mountain on the NW quarter of Section 12 T1N R4W of the Arrowhead Property. Portions of Cold Water Canyon and Creek are on the Arrowhead Property. Cold water from fissures from stratum on precipices were said to feed Cold Water Creek at this location. A pipeline on the high mesa in this location was run to capture some of this water for bottling. This 1909-1913 water use for bottling is well documented in repeated testimony from the court cases 11399 and 12532 in 1910 and 1913.
There were broken contracts, injunctions and lawsuits between the bottler Arrowhead Springs Water Company and the water rights and property owners Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, which caused deteriorated relationships.
In 1912/1913 Arrowhead Hot Springs Company resolved to build a water bottling facility near the hotel to bottle and distribute Arrowhead Springs water. The hotel stood at an elevation of roughly 2,000 feet. The water bottling enterprise was then named Arrowhead Springs Company. In 1917, Arrowhead Springs Company moved its water bottling works to a new facility in Los Angeles at Washington and Compton avenues. However, the water rights remained with the property, not the water bottling works.
The Cold Water Canyon creek water was captured in a pipe to transport water for bottling. “Agua Fria” was the name for the water of Cold Water Canyon, which is also referred to as “Indian Springs” by Bailey (1917). The spring “Fuente Frio” was also used for water bottling in 1909 according to several sources, as this was listed as Penyugal Cold Springs. Fuente Frio is located in Arrowhead Canyon on the Arrowhead Spring Property in a ravine north of the hot El Penyugal Spring. The Arrowhead Water Company of Los Angeles bottled the contracted water from Cold Water Canyon. Reportedly the company switched to using water from Fuente Frio during the winter when Cold Water Creek turned muddy. The 1910 lawsuits and fraud charges against Arrowhead Springs Water Company later put the LA Arrowhead Springs Water Company out of business. However, shareholders recapitalized another bottling company, Arrowhead Cold Springs Company, which filed for bankruptcy in 1912.
When Arrowhead Hot Springs Company started its own water bottling company, Arrowhead Springs Company, next to the hotel, it bottled water from 1,900 foot elevation Penyugal Springs, the hottest spring below the hotel, along with other springs such as 2,022 elevation Granite Hot Springs on the west mesa near Penyugal and Fuento Frio cold spring up the canyon from Penyugal. Among the products the company offered were soda ginger ale, as well as water containing substances that today would be difficult to market. Arrowhead, for example, advertised one bottled water product under the Penyugal Springs label as being high in arsenic and “Arrolax” meant to serve as an aperient or laxative. In very minute quantities, arsenic is considered a nutrient. Arrowhead Springs water was marketed as high in radiation content.
So, two water companies – Arrowhead Springs Water Company and Arrowhead Hot Springs Water Company – were bottling water and competing to sell and distribute water and products after the relationship between them deteriorated, with lawsuits and injunctions filed. Ads show Arrowhead Springs Water Company’s Arrowhead springs water was also called Indian medicine water with an American Indian featured on the Arrowhead Water label. The Arrowhead Hot Springs Company was the owner of the Arrowhead Springs Property, and retained the water rights. The business was later Arrowhead Springs Corporation.
The bottled water withdrawals on San Bernardino National Forest lands seem to have started around 1928 when Arrowhead Springs Corporation (Ltd.) sold false rights on forest lands to water bottler and distributor California Consolidated Waters in what appears to be an attempt to raise funds for a bond debt and use water sources other than the hotel property. Even Arrowhead Springs Corporation admitted no “warranty” rights above section12 in T1N R4W, located at the base of the Arrowhead, in an agreement which would have included Indian Spring’s two tunnels 1,000 feet north of the Arrowhead Springs Property boundaries and west of the landmark Arrowhead and Strawberry Canyon wells/springs and tunnels, at the approximate 5,200 foot elevation.
False claims were acknowledged in some documents. Basically, the false claims made by Arrowhead Springs Corporation to California Consolidated Waters Company involved false water rights and easements on San Bernardino National Forest lands leading to the unwarranted water withdrawal from the National Forest since 1928.
Arrowhead Springs Corporation didn’t transfer water rights to Consolidated Waters, but rather made up new ones in the San Bernardino National Forest so Consolidated Waters could develop more water sources, give Arrowhead Springs Property more water and promote the Arrowhead name by bottling and selling the water while Arrowhead Springs Corporation profited. The appropriation of non-existent rights became the basis for the adverse possession case involved in the Del Rosa lawsuit.
Federal property is immune from adverse possession; a county court ruling which awarded adversarial rights to a claimant on federal property therefore would not be deemed valid under any circumstances. The federal government was not party to the Del Rosa suit and the San Bernardino National Forest land was not mentioned in the suit. Title insurance clauses exempted water rights title on federal lands, which would have invalidated legal water rights on Forest Service lands to Nestlé’s predecessors-in-interest.
These facts can become confusing if location is not the focus. The “1929 Indian Springs tunnels” referenced by San Bernardino lawyer Byron Waters’ 1929 letter have been documented in survey plat maps filed in Map book 2 pages 18 and 19. According to the 1929 pipeline survey plat map, these tunnels are located in T1N R4W, which when plotted on USGS/USFS maps are located 1,000 feet north and 200 feet west of the NE corner marker of Section 11, placing these tunnels directly on the E ½ of Sec 2 T1N R4W, which is San Bernardino National Forest land. Nestlé’s upper Strawberry Canyon wells/tunnels/springs are also on National Forest lands T2N R3W. Moreover, the Del Rosa Suit never authorized for the appropriation of Section 30, where most of the wells are located.
Nonetheless, these “Indian Springs tunnels” and upper Strawberry Canyon water rights were not claimed pre-forest reserve founding in 1893, located at the 2,700 foot and 5,000 foot elevations, respectively. There is never any indication that Arrowhead Property owners were using these areas in the National Forest for water. Thus, the Indian Springs tunnels like the upper Strawberry Canyon sites appear to be a “taking” of forest land ecosystems and water starting in the 1920s. “Indian Springs” tunnels on the San Bernardino National Forest land T1N R4W E1/2 of Section 2 and the Upper Strawberry Canyon water withdrawal sites T2N R3W were not the site of the water used for the first water bottling and therefore no pre-1914 rights can be conferred in any way.
Moreover, in 1930, Consolidated Waters quitclaimed water rights of these “Indian Springs” tunnels to Arrowhead Springs Corporation on page 125 of Book 648 pg 122. Archived documents indicate that there is an “Indian Springs” tunnel pipeline running under U.S. Forest land. Nestlé has no valid pre-1914 water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest. The Del Rosa lawsuit was really an adverse possession suit that should have no valid claim of forest water or land for Nestlé’s predecessor-in interest within the San Bernardino National Forest boundaries.
The 1929 letter from Byron Waters appears to be an attempt to build the adverse possession case for California Consolidated Waters and Arrowhead Springs Corporation. Byron Waters’ letter is an admission that these “Indian Springs tunnels” are man made tunnels by appropriation without permission and on federal lands with a legal description that confirms their location on San Bernardino National Forest land. Federal property is immune from adverse possession. These Indian Spring tunnels are not the water source for pre-1914 water bottling which took place on private land contained on the Arrowhead Springs Property.
Federal and State property adverse possession immunity was never considered in the Del Rosa lawsuit or by the State Water Resource Control Board. The San Bernardino National Forest was founded on February 25, 1893 and public notice to stake claim within the boundaries was given for a 90 day period in 1894. Thus, any claim of water within the San Bernardino National Forest would be subject to the 1894 rule and not the 1914 rule.
Boundaries and surveys are highly relevant in this case. The United States Geological Service’s and the United States Forest Service’s topographical maps of the San Bernardino Mountains are properly used as base maps to establish forest service versus private property boundaries. It is clearly evident from the historical record that private owners did stake claim to water and property based on these official topographical and quadrangle maps and reflected boundaries. Federal reserve rights and overlaying landowner groundwater rights thus apply to this case.
An examination of the historical record indicates that Nestlé has no rights of water withdrawal for surface or groundwater in the San Bernardino National Forest. While there is indeed a corporation chain of title for Nestlé and its predecessors-in-interest, there is no documentary proof of chain of title for the “real property” water rights filed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office.
There is a lack of clarity as to which 1909 Arrowhead Water bottling company Nestlé is claiming as a predecessor-in-interest, between the Los Angeles-based Arrowhead Spring Water Company and the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company or Arrowhead Springs Company or Arrowhead Cold Springs Company.
Nestlé’s corporate chain of title is essential for its successor-in-liability.
Over the last generation, there have been billions of gallons of water withdrawn from public land in the San Bernardino Mountains within the National Forest which has negatively impacted the endangered and threatened species habitat, the forest ecosystem and deprived the valleys below with groundwater recharge. Dried creek beds and diminished damp headwater springs offer visual evidence, and the ecological travail to the National Forest has been extensively documented in reports by the Forest Service.
While environmentalists are importuning the Forest Service and the California Water Resources Board to immediately foreclose Nestlé’s water drawing activity in Strawberry Canyon, Anthony Kusich, a spokesman for Nestlé Waters of North America this week told the Sentinel, “Arrowhead Brand Mountain Spring Water has been sustainably sourced and bottled from the springs in Strawberry Canyon, in what is now the San Bernardino National Forest, for more than 120 years. We take our responsibility as a California water steward seriously, and our ability to operate for more than a century points to our commitment to sustainability.”
Kusich said, “In its initial report, the State Water Resources Control Board staff has acknowledged that Nestlé Waters North America has valid, pre-1914 surface water rights for 26 acre-feet per year, as well as long-standing groundwater rights for 126 acre-feet per year–for a total of 152 acre-feet (or 49.5 million gallons) of water per year. In addition to having rights to 152 acre-feet per year, we believe we have valid rights to additional water in Strawberry Canyon. We are talking with the State Water Resources Control Board and anticipate sending them further historical data to validate our additional water rights, including century-old documents to the extent they are available.”
Kusich was unable to delineate which bottling company – Los Angeles-based Arrowhead Spring Water Company, the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, Arrowhead Springs Company or Arrowhead Cold Springs Company – Nestlé is claiming as a predecessor-in-interest to the water rights it claims to hold.

San Bernardino County has sued two of its citizens in an effort to dissuade them from placing an initiative on the ballot that would restore members of the board of supervisors to the status of citizen legislators by making their offices part time positions and pegging supervisors’ compensation to the median household income in the county.
In 2012, a group of county residents, led by Wrightwood resident and former grand jury member Kieran “Red” Brennan launched what seemed a Quixotic effort to gather the 43,250 signatures needed on a petition to put before the voters a countywide initiative that would reduce San Bernardino County supervisors’ yearly $151,971 salaries and $67,500 in benefits to $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in benefits annually, a drop in total compensation from $219,471 per year to $60,000. Brennan’s seemingly impossible undertaking was furthered when he coordinated with others of a like mind and received financial and logistical assistance in the required signature-gathering effort.
The proponents succeeded in gathering 73,672 signatures to qualify the initiative for inclusion on the November 2012 ballot. The county registrar of voters later designated that initiative “Measure R.”
Alarmed at this development, a majority of the board of supervisors in July 2012 invoked their privilege as elected officials and placed a measure on the November ballot designed to counteract Brennan’s initiative that called for reducing the supervisors’ salaries by a more moderate amount – a $5,269 trimming to $146,702.per year, while allowing their $67,500 annual benefits to remain in place. The board did not need to gather any citizen signatures to qualify its proposal for the ballot, but did so on the basis of its own authority. That initiative was designated “Measure Q.”
Brennan and other proponents of Measure R insisted that Measure Q was a cynical attempt at sleight-of-hand to fool the voters and have them accept a bogus version of reform. Impervious to those assertions, the members of the board of supervisors called upon their campaign donors, raised over a half of a million dollars and engaged in a promotional blitz in which they jumped on the reform bandwagon, while praising Measure Q as the proper vehicle to effectuate positive change, while running down Measure R as unrealistic overkill.
That ploy worked. When the county’s voters went to the polls in November 2012, Measure R, which would have reduced the supervisors’ total compensation by 72.6 percent, was favored by a solid majority, with 326,939 or 64.25 percent voting for it and 181,907 or 35.75 percent rejecting it. Simultaneously, however, the voters passed Measure Q by a margin of 344,226 votes or 67.28 percent in favor to 167,369 or 32.72 percent opposed. Thus, Measure Q, which imposed a far more modest 2.4 percent reduction in overall compensation, was put into effect because it had passed with more votes.
Brennan went to his grave in 2013, convinced county officials had hoodwinked the voters and unfairly utilized their positions of authority to thwart the much-needed reform.
Last year, a citizen’s association led by Dave Gates and Gage Bruce calling itself The Red Brennan Group resurrected a reform proposal along the lines, and in the spirit, of what Brennan had proposed, determined to seek the envisioned reform that eluded the 2012 effort.
On October 26, 2017, county citizens, supported by The Red Brennan Group, submitted two initiatives to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.
The first initiative called for transforming the county supervisors’ positions to part time and dispensing with the position of county chief executive officer by reinstating the position of county administrative officer as the county’s highest ranking staff member. This would undo the action taken by the county in 2010, when Greg Devereaux was hired to replace the county’s last county administrative officer, Mark Uffer. Devereaux was hired not as the county administrative officer but was installed as the county’s chief executive officer and was provided with a significantly higher salary than Uffer had received. Devereaux was given absolute autonomy over all county department heads, with the authority to hire and fire them without board approval. He was further provided with a so-called superbonus, which prevented him from being dismissed on anything less than a 4-to1 majority vote of the board, whereas Uffer and all of his predecessors had been subject to being terminated on a simple 3-to-2 majority vote of the board. The Red Brennan Group’s proposed initiative put a per capita limit on the number of county employees, while simultaneously making the board chairman the county’s chief executive authority. The declared intention of the initiative was to make the county more responsive to the electorate.
The second initiative called for imposing on the board of supervisors a requirement that they institute a policy of making county government employee pay and benefits equal to private industry pay and benefits in comparable positions.
After the initiative proposals were submitted to the county’s stable of in-house lawyers known as the office of county counsel for analysis, the county sued Gates and Bruce, identified as the petition’s proponents, claiming the initiatives violate the California Constitution, the current legal authority of the supervisors, and the single subject rule for initiatives. In its lawsuit, the county contended it should not be required to complete its ministerial duty of writing a ballot title and summary for the initiative proposals.
In response, the proponents, supported by and at some level indistinguishable from the Red Brennan Group, filed a countersuit, seeking a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the county and the office of county counsel to carry out its constitutional duty under the law to write a ballot title and summary so the petition gathering for the initiative could proceed. The Red Brennan Group then submitted seven further separate initiatives that, in essence, broke down the two original initiatives to overcome the county’s contention that the initiatives violated the single subject rule. This resulted in the county suing the Red Brennan Group with regard to four of the seven new initiative proposals. Further legal sparring ensued, which resulted in the Red Brennan Group submitting twelve initiatives in total.
The Red Brennan Group had relied upon the letter of the law and previous California Supreme Court decisions, which hold that attempts at qualifying voter initiatives should be provided with the opportunity to proceed to the signature gathering stage and that challenges of the legality or constitutionality of the specifics in the proposed initiative are properly taken up after sufficient signatures have been gathered. California law further provides for an initiative to be challenged on constitutional grounds if appropriate after it has been passed by the voters, if indeed it is passed by the voters.
The county, contending, that several of the initiatives as proposed by the Red Brennan Group were either prohibited by law or the California Constitution, outright refused to provide the ballot title and summary for most of the initiatives, which prevented the Red Brennan Group with moving ahead in the initiative qualification process, the next major step of which is to gather the requisite signatures. The county did provide a ballot title and summary for two initiatives. One of those calls for reducing the supervisors to part time status and giving them a commensurate reduction in pay and benefits. The second one seeks to impose a one-term limit on the supervisors, preventing each member of the board from serving more than four years in that capacity. The county sued for relief of their magisterial duties on seven other initiatives, which provoked the Red Brennan Group’s petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
Yesterday, January 18, Superior Court Judge David Cohn denied the request for a Writ of Mandamus, ruling, essentially, that the county was justified in refusing to provide the requested titles and summaries on the initiatives it deemed unconstitutional.
Speaking with the Sentinel after the hearing, Tom Murphy, a spokesman for the Red Brennan Group, characterized Cohn’s ruling as “a clear excursion from the majority of case law that disfavors pre-ballot challenges based on substantive issues. Judge Cohn ignored county counsel’s clear mandate under California law to perform its ‘ministerial duty.’”
Murphy said the Red Brennan Group “must now choose the lesser of two evils – acquiesce to the county’s heavy-handed attempt to take away citizens’ rights granted by Article II Sec. 11 of the California Constitution or expend precious resources by appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals.”
Murphy said the group had initiated the initiative process in October, believing doing so would allow enough time to carry out the petition gathering effort and other actions necessary to get the initiative on the November 2018 ballot. But the county’s action in fighting the effort had interrupted that timetable, Murphy said. And Cohn’s ruling, which will require that the group wage an appeal and prevail, has exacerbated the time crunch, Murphy said. “Even if we get an expedited hearing and decision from the Appellate Court and a favorable ruling, that would leave us with just about half the time we would have ideally wanted to get the signatures before the submission deadline for the November election,” Murphy said.
Murphy stressed his belief that the county’s objections to the original proposed initiatives and the follow-ups to it were invalid, lending credence to the group’s perspective that the county’s leaders, in particular the board of supervisors and the senior county staff that exists as its support network, were resistant to the reforms the Red Brennan Group wants to effectuate.
Murphy said the Red Brennan Group and its legal advisors anticipated that the county might contend that the initiative the group was proposing did not comply with the single subject initiative rule, but that they believed they had the substantive and legal grounds to overcome that objection. “Our intent was to create a county leadership accountability initiative, and the reforms we were seeking were bullet points in that formula for accountability,” Murphy said.
-Mark Gutglueck

The ongoing rhubarb in the West Valley Water District has pitted some dozen-and-a-half current or former public officials against one another, with the lines of demarcation being drawn along an axis that is both predictable and unpredictable, and at once transparent and opaque. One understandable divide in the fight is that between Republicans and Democrats. Another is between winners and losers, in the political sense. Yet another is the line between insiders and outsiders, the enabled and the disenfranchised. At the same time there are either hidden alliances or enmities or at the very least contradictory ones that make handicapping which side might come out on top somewhat risky. Thrown into the mix is the dynamic of race – including a 15-year-bygone rivalry between two of the region’s most politically advanced African American public figures that is continuing to play out. This circumstance has been superheated by charges, which have since been discredited, that the central and most powerful of the public figures in the controversy engaged in deprecating racial remarks aimed at a black woman, despite the man accused being an African American himself.
The roots of the contretemps extend back to 2003, when Gerald “Jerry” Eaves, a former Rialto mayor and member of the state legislature who in 1992 had forsaken his political career in Sacramento to successfully vie for San Bernardino County supervisor in the Fifth District, had found himself embroiled in scandal, which consisted of a series of charges that he was taking bribes left and right in his role as supervisor. Beginning in 1999, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and the San Bernardino County were arm wrestling each other over which agency would proceed with a case against Eaves. Penultimately, both undertook prosecutions against him. This grew problematic, however, as Eaves’ defense attorneys protested that he was being subjected to unconstitutional double jeopardy, that is, being tried twice for the same crimes. This delayed for some time the case against Eaves, at that time the sole Democrat on the board of supervisors, and even in the face of the negative publicity stemming from the accusations of bribe-taking against him, he managed to gain reelection in 2000. Eventually U.S. Judge Manuel Real, a Democrat who had been appointed to the Federal Bench by Lyndon Johnson, threw the federal government’s case against Eaves out on the basis of the double jeopardy principle, and the criminal case against Eaves on the corruption charges went forward in state court. In 2003, his attorneys forged a plea arrangement with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office under which Eaves would avoid going to prison, but would have to admit guilt, pay a substantial fine and resign from office. There ensued a discussion among the four remaining members of the board of supervisors on selecting Eaves’ replacement. The circumstance presented a unique opportunity to the supervisors. Throughout the county’s 150-year history to that point, an African-American had never been elected to the board of supervisors and now that panel could by a simple vote install virtually anyone it chose, with the sole limitations that the individual selected be of the age of majority and live within the Fifth District. After contemplating a number of potential candidates, the board narrowed the field to two, both of whom were African-Americans: Cheryl Brown, the publisher of the Black Voice News, and Clifford Young, who was the Republican nominee for Congress in the 32nd Congressional District in 1976, was a Commerce Department Official in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and a professor of public administration/department chairman and later assistant president at Cal State San Bernardino. Ultimately, the four members of the board of supervisors, Republicans all, elevated Young, a member of the GOP, to the supervisor’s post over Brown, a Democrat. Young served out the remainder of Eaves’ term but chose not to run in 2004, instead returning to Cal State University San Bernardino as an educator. Subsequently, Cheryl Brown, who in addition to being a publisher had been a member of the San Bernardino County Planning Commission and the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission, was elected to the California Assembly in 2012, where she served two terms until being defeated for reelection by another Democrat, Eloise Reyes in 2016.
In 2013, after a hiatus of nearly a decade, Young, a resident of Rialto, ran for a position on the board of the West Valley Water District. The West Valley Water District provides domestic water to approximately 80,000 customers in portions of Rialto, Colton, Fontana, Bloomington, an unincorporated area of San Bernardino County, and Jurupa Valley in Riverside County. The population within the West Valley Water District’s jurisdiction is almost exclusively blue collar, with registered Democrats in that area outnumbering Republicans by more than two-to-one. Young, however, was able to cruise to an easy victory in the 2013 race, which is traditionally considered to be a non-partisan contest, based largely on his ability to call on the county Republican support network which has far greater sophistication than its Democratic counterpart. Thus, Young marshaled considerable electioneering might. Also elected in 2013 with some 73 more votes than Young, was Linda Gonzalez, a Democrat.
In office, however, his Republican leanings proved to be somewhat awkward, and Young found himself to be at odds with at least some of the district’s personnel, who considered him to be autocratic, demanding, arrogant and too Republican for their tastes. They resented, as well, Young’s tendency to promote the hiring of his colleagues or other staff members previously employed at Cal State San Bernardino. One of those troubled by Young’s ascendancy at the West Valley Water District was
Shanae Smith, who had been hired as an executive assistant with the district in February 2011. She eventually promoted to board secretary. On January 13, 2017, Smith lodged a complaint with Los Angeles district office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing identical complaints in which she claimed to have been harassed by Young on September 13, 2016. Smith’s complaint referenced, “Dr. Young making an offensive comment (i.e. ‘subservient black woman’) about my race and gender.” In addition, Smith said, Young in October 2016 had warned her to side with him rather than [board member Linda] Gonzalez with regard to a certain issue then before the board, telling her “If you do this, I will protect you. If you don’t, I can’t protect you!” Subsequently, according to Smith, on December 14, 2016, on which day water district officials held back-to-back meetings of the district’s external affairs committee and finance committee, Young prevented her from attending the finance committee meeting by telling her, “Madame Clerk, what is your role here? Your presence is unnecessary.” According to Smith, Young discriminated against her and other female employees of the district based on gender, race, age and pregnancy. In her complaint, Smith stated, “I believe I was discriminated against because of my race, black, my sex, female, and retaliated against for engaging in protective activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
In November 2016, prior to lodging the unfair employment practice complaints with the state and federal government, Smith informed the district of what she called a “hostile work environment and retaliation.” Shortly thereafter the district hired the Los Angeles-based law firm of Albright, Yee & Schmit, which specializes in protecting businesses and public agencies against claims and lawsuits by employees alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage & hour disputes and unfair labor practices.
Less than two months after Smith had filed her complaint, Stella Albright and Christopher Pantell with Albright, Yee & Schmitt, the district’s contracted law firm, issued an “internal investigation report” on March 3, 2017 which stated, “This investigation, initiated on December 15, 2016, and concluded as of the date of this investigative report, finds Ms. Smith’s allegations are unsubstantiated. Specifically: Ms. Smith’s charge that Dr. Young discriminated against her on the basis of race (African American) and gender (female) is unsubstantiated. Ms. Smith’s charge that her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing resulted in retaliation and harassment against her by Dr. Young in the form of a hostile work environment is unsubstantiated. Ms. Smith’s charge that Dr. Young discriminated against other female employees of the district on the basis of race, gender, age and/or pregnancy is unsubstantiated. Ms. Smith’s charge that Dr. Young targeted female employees for termination and that he maintained a list of those employees is unsubstantiated.”
Another district employee who found herself on the outs with Young was Suzanne Cook, who hired on as an accounting supervisor with the district in October 2010 and was elevated into the position of the district’s chief finance director in 2015. Within two months of moving into that position, Cook took issue with what she considered to be the haphazard way in which Young, in defiance of the district’s protocol, sought reimbursement from the district when he engaged in travel or other activities related to his role as a district board member. Cook maintained that Young insisted on using his own credit card in lieu of the credit card issued to him by the water district to pay for district-related travel, meals and other expenses. Young’s habit was to claim and collect reimbursement for those expenses, despite the district’s policy of having such charges lodged against board members’ district-issued credit cards. Cook alleged Young failed to fully document those claims with complete receipts. In a lawsuit she filed last July naming the district and Young, Cook alleges that in August 2016, shortly after assistant district general manager Matthew Litchfield had been brought in to replace district general manager Thomas Crowley, Young essentially forced Litchfield to fire her. Cook further claimed that Young violated the district’s hiring procedures by bypassing the district’s new hire screening and interview process and unethically pressuring Litchfield to hire Young’s handpicked candidates, many of whom were working at or had worked at Cal State San Bernardino.
Young, represented by the law offices of Barbe & Bauermeister, on September 21, 2017, filed a demurrer in the case. On October 10, 2017, Judge Donald Alvarez granted Young’s demurrer, dismissing him from the lawsuit. Cook’s lawsuit remains in play, but Young is no longer a defendant.
The district maintains that Cook’s firing was justified in that she had not yet achieved her one-year anniversary as finance director and, consequently, was a probationary employee considered at will, who thus could be fired without need to cite cause. A readiness for trial is now scheduled for August 2 and the jury trial, which is estimated as being of seven to twelve days in duration, is to begin before Alvarez on August 6.
In November 2017, the forces aligned with Young turned out en masse, assisted by the Republican political machine that militated heavily on behalf of Republican candidates in the district. Without emphasizing the party affiliation of the candidates they were backing – Young and Michael Taylor, who is the police chief in the Los Angeles County City of Baldwin Park but resides in Rialto – the Republican machine put out mailers making a positive celebration of Young and Taylor and others which reflected negatively on Gonzalez. Also competing in the race for the two four-year terms up for election was Anthony “Butch” Araiza, who worked for the West Valley Water District for 52 years, the last thirty as its general manager until he retired in June 2015. When the votes were tallied, Young polled 1,428 votes or 27.53 percent, to garner reelection. Gonzalez, who gathered 1,345 votes or 25.93 percent, was displaced on the board by Taylor, the Baldwin Park police chief, who snagged 1,404 votes, or 27.06 percent. Araiza also fell short with 1,011 votes, or 19.49 percent.
Also up for election two months ago was a short two-year term for the position held by incumbent Robert Bourland, who had been appointed to temporarily fill the gap created by the resignation of Alan Dyer, who was elected to a four-year term in 2015. Bourland, however, who pulled in 1,350 votes or 45.15 percent on November 7, 2017, was ousted by Kyle Nelson Crowther, who garnered 1,640 votes or 54.85 percent.
In the aftermath of the election, there was considerable discomfiture among Democrats, who had simply been outhustled at the polls, as well as among several district employees, who were hoping Young would be turned out of office. But the election had gone triply bad for them, as Gonzalez was ousted in favor of Taylor – a solid Young ally – and Crowther had replaced Bourland. This put Young firmly in control of the district. What was more, Araiza, who for decades had exercised an extensive degree of control over the district as its general manager and could make a rightful claim to being the most knowledgeable individual with regard to the nuts and bolts, pipelines and pumps, reservoirs and cisterns and the practical intricacies of the district’s operations had been for a second time left on the outside looking in, having lost in his effort to get elected to the board in 2015.
Trouble was brewing, as whispers among district employees relating accusations of cronyism by Young and abuses of his travel and expense privileges as an elected official grew into a hum, then a buzz, then a drone, gradually loudening into a crescendo. A charge sheet, one that was put together by Smith, assistant general manager Greg Gage, the district’s human resources manager Karen Logue and chief financial officer Marie Ricci surfaced, alleged that Young had assembled a clique that had grown to become a political machine dominating the water district. That machine, which had already included Baldwin Park City Attorney Robert Tafoya as the district’s newly hired legal counsel, had metastasized to include Taylor on the board, it was pointed out, a conflicting entanglement since both worked together in the City of Baldwin Park. And the charge sheet cataloged a myriad of accusations, together with what was represented as documentation, that Young was overstepping his authority by promoting those with whom he was politically, personally or professionally connected into positions within the district, in some cases for which they were not qualified. Those included Cynthia Pringle, a former employee at Cal State San Bernardino who was hired as a public spokesperson for the water district, allegedly at a salary exceeding a quarter of a million dollars per year, according to Gage, Ricci, Logue and Smith. Another colleague from Cal State San Bernardino they said was accorded favorable treatment was Bob Christman, a former mayor and city councilman in Loma Linda who had served as assistant chief financial officer in the district at an annual salary of $180,585.
The ruling coalition on the board, surveying the burgeoning mutiny, demanded that Litchfield clamp down on the insurrection. When Litchfield failed at that assignment, on Monday, December 11, the board went into a hastily called special closed session at which it voted, by a 4-1 margin, with director Donald Olinger dissenting, to place Litchfield on administrative leave and fire Ricci, who like her predecessor as chief financial officer Cook, had no civil service protection as she was yet within her one-year probationary term as an employee and could be terminated without cause. Unheedful, it seemed, of the accusations leveled by Gage, Ricci, Logue and Smith to the effect that Young was perpetually installing his associates from Cal State San Bernardino into positions with the district, the board named Robert Christman from the college’s finance division, as Litchfield’s interim replacement.
The next day, December 12, the board came to its regularly scheduled meeting with the four-member ruling coalition intent on bringing the curtain down on the insurgency that was manifesting at the staff level, making a show of strength and thereby reestablishing its command of the district. The board’s first order of business at the meeting was to adjourn into closed session, where outside the prying eyes of the public, it endeavored to show everyone who is boss by placing Gage, Logue and Smith on administrative leave, pending an investigation. When the board’s members emerged from the closed session, it found itself faced with an overflow crowd, which had already been galvanized by action against Litchfield and Ricci. Among the teeming mob were: Butch Araiza; Cheryl Brown; A. Majadi, the president of the San Bernardino office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and Don Griggs of the Westside Action Group. After the board filed back into the room and its members took their places on the dais, to Tafoya, the district’s attorney, fell the task of informing the already restless and agitated horde that the district was now going to have to function for the readily foreseeable future without three more of its senior staff members. He stated that these members, like Litchfield, were placed on administrative leave and that a personnel investigation into their action and that of Litchfield, was being initiated. All those in the room recognized the investigation was in essence aimed at justifying terminating the four. Bedlam ensued. Order was not restored until officers with the Rialto Police Department arrived.
Scott Olson, a member of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee who was active in promoting Young’s candidacy, said, “There was an election. That was an adversarial contest. The other group tried to play dirty and we refuted 90 percent of their claims. Cliff was elected by a wide margin.” Olson said Young had the dual advantage of a solid track record in office and a reliable political team. “The voters were happy with what he did during his first four years in office and they put him back in,” Olson said. “He and the people around him also know how to run a campaign. When you are up against someone who understands what he is doing, then you have a challenge on your hands.”
He said that Young and Taylor simply executed better on their campaign strategy than had Gonzalez and Araiza. Of Araiza, Olsen said, “He may know how to run a water district, but he doesn’t know how to run a campaign.” He said that Young’s opponents used underhanded campaign tactics that did not work. “They decided to run a negative, false campaign. The had a fake FPPC [Fair Political Practices Commission] number, a false FPPC group, and they were using spoof phone calls. Cliff didn’t run a campaign against them as much as he ran one on behalf of himself. It wasn’t until they started with the negatives that he called them out.”
With regard to what happened in the run-up to and at both the December 11 and December 12 meetings of the board, Olson said Young’s political opponents had blurred the distinction between campaign activity and their duties as district employees.
“What happened to them [Gage, Ricci, Logue and Smith] is something of their own bidding, a consequence of their own behavior,” Olson said. “Once the campaign is over with, they had responsibilities on the administrative side, and that included duties to listen to the directions of the board as conveyed to them through the general manager and to do their jobs. At the [December 12] meeting, they were engaging in outright insubordination and slander. The personnel director was literally inciting people to riot while the board was in closed session. She took over the microphone and was shouting down people who were not part of their group. When you have an employee who is inciting the public to riot, why would anyone expect anything other than that employee is going to be put on administrative leave? She slit her own throat by her outburst.”
Olson said it was not lost on the board, which possesses the only real authority with regard to the district, that Butch Araiza and Cheryl Brown were in the room, egging everyone on. Olson said Brown still bears a grudge against Young over the board of supervisors’ selection of him rather than her to replace Eaves a decade-and-a-half ago. The 2017 election is over, Olson said, and the time for governance is now.
“You have the campaign process and you have the job process,” Olson said. They [Gage, Ricci, Logue and Smith] took sides as employees with what one board member, Linda Gonzalez, wanted vs. what another board member [Young] wanted. They kept listening to Linda after the election was over and she was no longer on the board. They did not respect the authority in the district, as it is defined, which means the elected board members.”
Olson defended putting Litchfield, Gage, Logue and Smith on administrative leave.
“They gave the board no choice with the accusations they made,” Olson said. “When there is an investigation you have to remove the employee from that position so the matter can be looked into. You don’t go public with accusations and expect there is not going to be an investigation. They put themselves into that position.”
To the assertion that Litchfield had not engaged in any political activity and had not leveled any accusations at anyone, Olson acknowledged that to be the case, but said, “By the district’s bylaws and rules, the general manager serves at the pleasure of the body [i.e., the board]. When you are the general manager, it is the board’s choice whether to hire you or fire you. I have no idea why Matt was put on executive leave. There is an investigation pending. If he is a victim of the employees below him, that will be determined. The board has to make a decision based on the facts. You had people screaming during a meeting. It is not Cliff’s fault and it is not the board’s fault that accusations were made. These people are on paid administrative leave. They are on vacation while this investigation is being carried out.”
Olson said the board is being buffeted by others, such as Araiza, who have ambition and agendas of their own. “They are trying to create all of these crises and issues that do not exist,” he said.
He cited Araiza’s call for increasing water rates to ensure the district’s fiscal solvency and purchase earthquake insurance as an example. “The district has $40 million in reserves,” Olson said, somewhat ironically, given that the lion’s share of those reserves were husbanded during Araiza’s tenure as the district’s general manager. “The reserves are twice the district’s annual budget. How much money do you need as a nonprofit governmental agency to cover the bases?” he asked.
Olson said the district is well run and managed, in large part “Because you have people on the board with PhDs and masters degrees on how to run government. The more I look at it, I am at a loss to see how they [Araiza’s and Gonzales’s supporters and the Young political machine’s opponents] thought they could win. Was it because they were Democrats and they thought it [the election] couldn’t go any other way? Now they see they have put themselves in a bad position, and they’ve turned their anger up and are turning the agency upside down. And now you see the board reacting because they are having all of this nonsense shoved down their throats.”
-Mark Gutglueck

In what to the world resounded as an inexplicable act, Tyler Hilinski, the Upland High School star quarterback who appeared to be on verge of gridiron greatness at Washington State, committed suicide on Tuesday.
Hilinski, who had performed spectacularly for the Cougars at the close of the 2017 season and was in line to be Washington State’s starting signal caller in 2018, was found dead in his apartment on Tuesday, according to the Pullman, Washington Police Department.
Hilinski died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
Police said officers had been dispatched on Tuesday afternoon to Hilinski’s apartment north of the Washington State campus after some of his teammates had gone to his apartment after he was a no-show to a practice. A rifle and suicide note were found next to his body.
“Pullman Police detectives and the Whitman County Coroner’s Office are conducting a thorough investigation to confirm the suspected cause and manner of death,” according to a statement from the police department provided Tuesday.
In a media release Thursday, the Whitman County Coroner’s Office stated, “After completing the scene investigation, to include a detailed forensic examination with toxicology, into the death of Tyler Haun Halinski, age 21 of Irvine CA, a student at Washington State University, the coroner has determined that the decedent died on January 16, 2018 at his residence in Pullman. The cause of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. The manner of death was suicide. The Whitman County Coroner’s Office extends its condolences to family and friends.”
Hilinksi, at 6-foot-4 inches, weighing 205 pounds and possessed of both a strong arm and poise, appeared to be a strong NFL prospect. He played at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame High School before transferring to Upland High School his junior year.
His junior year he played in 13 games, had 177 completions against eight interceptions in 260 attempts for 3,053 yards and 34 touchdowns, a completion rate of .681, averaging 17.2 yards per catch and 234.8 yards per game. His longest completion went for 85 yards. He led Upland to the Inland Division semifinals, an offensive tour-de-force in which the Highlanders lost to Corona Centennial 86-56.
In the 2014 season as a high school senior, he played in 13 games, completed 165 passes for 2,738 yards, had a .682 completion rate, averaged 210.6 yards throwing per game and 12.7 completions per game, with 22 touchdowns across the entire season, or 1.7 touchdowns per game. His longest pass that year was for 63 yards and he threw five interceptions. The Highlanders reached the 2014 CIF semifinals under his command. He was named to the All-Inland Valley second team as quarterback.
In addition, as a junior with the Highlanders, he rushed for 297 yards in 105 carries, on one occasion scampering for a 23 yard gain, and as a senior ran for 166 yards in 94 carries, once galloping for a 44-yard pick-up.
He chose to attend Washington State and play under coach Mike Leach. He was the first player recruited and to be signed by the Cougars in 2015. As a freshman and most of his sophomore year at Washington State, Hilinski found himself riding the bench except for a few scattered downs, as Luke Falk, a standout from Logan, Utah, led the Cougars to 9-4, 8-5 and 9-4 seasons in 2015, 2016 and 2017. But 2017 marked a solid leap forward for Hilinski as he played in eight games. He made a notable appearance in early September against 22nd-ranked Boise State, coming in to replace Falk in the second half. He completed 25 of 33 passes for a total of 240 yards and three touchdowns, in an electrifying triple-overtime victory. In the final game of the season, in the Holiday Bowl, Falk was unavailable because of a wrist injury and Leach gave Hilinski the first start of his college career. He threw 50 passes, completing 39 of them for 272 yards, two touchdowns and one interception, as Michigan State defeated the Cougars 42-17.
There are multiple videos of Hilinski, from as early as his time in high school to more recently, being interviewed. In these he is questioned by scouts, sportscasters or others about, or is called upon to discuss issues relating to, the quarterback position. Other videos show him reviewing game situation videos of his own performance and that of his teammates. In them, Hilinski comes across as contemplative, articulate and articulate, and in command of all of the features of his teams’ playbooks.
“We are deeply saddened to hear the news of Tyler’s passing,” Leach said. “He was an incredible young man and everyone who had the privilege of knowing him was better for it. The entire Washington State University community mourns as our thoughts and prayers go out to his family.”
Hilinski, a Claremont native, was finishing his redshirt sophomore year and was to be a redshirt junior in the coming fall. He was slated to replace Falk, who had established several Washington State passing records during his four year tenure, as the Cougars’ starter at quarterback.

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
“Good-morning,” and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich—yes, richer than a king—
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

-Richard Arlington Robinson

Dr. Prem Salhotra, who for more than a decade has been one of the more active members of the medical community in the Morongo Basin, is facing serious scrutiny by the California Attorney General’s Office over charges that were lodged through the California Medical Board pertaining to exercising inadequate caution in prescribing painkillers to two of his patients.
According to the California Medical Board’s website, Salhotra’s primary status is that his license as a physician and surgeon is “current and renewed.” A secondary status notation indicates “accusation filed.” Clicking upon the accompanying icon opens a field which states: A formal, public charge by the board alleging a physician violated the Medical Practice Act. This is the result of a fully investigated complaint that has been referred to the Attorney General’s Office for prosecution. Practice is permitted unless otherwise specified.”
The Sentinel has learned that four allegations of repeated negligent acts, gross negligence, failure to maintain adequate and adequate medical records and unprofessional conduct pertaining to two patients have been lodged against Salhotra.
Both patients were under Salhotra’s care from 2012 to 2015.
One of the patients was experiencing extensive and chronic neck and lower back pain, hypertension, migraines and osteoarthritis of the spine. Accompanying those physical conditions was depression. According to the complaint against Salhotra, he prescribed heavy doses of morphine during much of his treatment of the patient but did not subject the patient to a urine drug screen and did not undertake to formulate a pain management regimen for the patient either. As a consequence, the patient developed a serious opioid dependence.
The second patent referenced in the complaint was being treated for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, rapid heartbeat and chronic lower back pain. Salhotra prescribed for the patient opioids, benzodiazepines and sleep medication and did not order a urine drug screen for the patient, according to the complaint. There is no record of Salhotra informing the patient of the risks attending the use of opioids. Salhotra, without consulting with or referring the patient to a psychiatrist, dispensed to the patient anti-hallucinogenic, anti-psychotic and anti-anxiety medications. Salhotra is on record as stating that his nurse practitioner specializes in psychiatry.
The accusations were filed on December 14, 2017, which came six weeks after Salhotra was feted at November 2 meeting of the Morongo Basin Healthcare District Board of Directors. At that time, the board members praised Salhotra for his concern, compassion, conscientiousness and depth of humanity. He was presented with certificates of appreciation and recognition and a proclamation of appreciation.
Significantly in the light of what occurred the following month, it was noted at that time that Salhotra was engaged in a campaign against opioid overuse. It was publicly stated that he had reduced his prescriptions of Schedule II drugs, including morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone and fentanyl by 44 percent and reduced combined schedule II, II and IV prescriptions by 48 percent. Salhotra, whose full name is Prem Parkash Salhotra, is a 1981 graduate of Guru Nanak University Amritsar, India, where he obtained his original M.D., a graduate of the University of Miami’s Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, where he obtained his U.S. M.D. He completed his residency with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He is board certified in internal medicine. He started his first medical practice in Morongo Valley in Wonder Valley.
He currently practices at Morongo Medical Group and is affiliated with Desert Regional Medical Center Palms Springs Campus, Eisenhower Medical Center, John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital and Hi-Desert Medical Center. He was instrumental in establishing or building up several public health clinics run by the Morongo Basin Healthcare District.
Of 26 reviews of Salhotra offered by those treated by him obtained by the Sentinel, 20 were positive, with several of those glowing, two were neutral, and four were negative. A common theme of the negative reviews was that Salhotra was not punctual, sometimes resulting in his patients waiting more than an hour after their scheduled appointment time to see him. Some said he spent little or no time with his patients, sometimes relying on his nurse practitioners. Reviewers both negative and positive noted that he is quite busy. It is well documented that Salhotra is one of the most sought after doctors in the Morongo Basin.
-Mark Gutglueck

The inmate who escaped from the California Institution for Men in Chino on January 14 was apprehended some 100 miles away in San Diego County the following day.
Michael Garrett, 33, who was serving a four-year eight month sentence for vehicle theft when he managed to slip out of the minimum-to-maximum security facility, was taken into custody without incident at 6:05 p.m. Monday, January 15, by officers with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office based in Encinitas.
State prison officials said Garrett was present during a 4 p.m. inmate count on January 14 but was unaccounted for during a Sunday night count shortly after 9 p.m. An internal search of the prison was undertaken at once. More than four hours later, an alarm that is intended to alert nearby residents to an escaped convict was sounded, at sometime after 1:50 a.m., some of those nearby residents told the Sentinel. There was no explanation forthcoming from prison officials as to the reason for the delay.
There was some initial confusion about how Garrett had escaped, and local law enforcement officials at one point indicated he had taken a vehicle in making his getaway, and that he had been pursued by a law enforcement officer who lost his trail. Across the Orange County Line in Yorba Linda, more than two dozen law enforcement officers undertook an intensified search in that city on January 15 based on a belief that Garrett had fled there, reportedly be-
cause an electronic tracker on the car he had stolen gave indication of his presence within that area. Subsequently, authorities were unwilling to confirm that earlier report.
Garrett was serving a four year, eight month sentence for first-degree burglary, evading or attempting to evade a peace officer while driving recklessly, and vehicle theft pertaining to a case out of San Diego County. He checked into Chino Prison on October 30, 2017 and was scheduled for parole in October 2019.
Based on investigative leads, special agents from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Correctional Safety Special Service Unit and Fugitive Apprehension Team tracked Garrett to a Vons grocery store at 453 Santa Fe Drive. The San Diego Sheriff’s Office responded to the location, where they observed Garrett standing in front of the store. He was taken into custody without incident and has been returned to the California Institution for Men in Chino.
A report on Garrett’s escape is now being compiled for forwarding to both the San Diego County and San Bernardino County district attorney’s office for consideration of escape charges.
Since 1977, according to the California Department of Corrections, 99 percent of all offenders who have left an adult institution, camp or community-based program without permission have been apprehended.
The most infamous escape from Chino Prison was that of Kevin Cooper on June 2, 1983. Cooper was subsequently caught and charged with and convicted of the murders of Douglas and Peggy Ryen, their 10-year-old daughter Jessica and their son’s friend, Christopher Hughes, which had apparently occurred in the evening of June 4, 1983 at the Ryen residence in Chino Hills. The victims had been attached with a hatchet, sliced with a knife, and stabbed with an ice-pick. Josh Ryen, Douglas and Peggy Ryens’ 8-year-old son, survived the attack. Cooper, who has consistently maintained his innocence, is on death row at San Quentin Prison, while his attorneys persist with appeals of his conviction, all of which, to date, have been rejected.

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
As you all know, I am a bit behind the times, owing of course to my advanced age. I never gained personal entre into the computer era. Nowadays, these cybernetic devices are all the rage, a staple of life, and I have still not caught up. I have something of an understanding of what it is all about. I take it these modern contraptions, in cohesion with their attendant internet and emails and websites, are a modern version of the teletypes we had in my day. Around my household we do have a computer, more than one actually, one in the basement, one on the first floor, another on the second floor and one on the the third floor. To my butler, Hudson, falls the duty of tending to them. One of his assignments is to mine the internet for things that might be of use or interest to me. He uses a printer attached to the computer to provide me with an oversized page of whatever he has come across, so large I can read it without my monocle…
This week, Hudson left on my desk something or other from financialhub.com entitled “The Ten Worst Cities In California To Live In.” Of the ten listed, five were in San Bernardino County…
Tenth on the list, meaning it was the best of the ten highlighted, was Hesperia. Hesperia’s 10.8 percent unemployment rate was noted. In addition, it is stated that Hesperia has one of the longest commute times in the state and its schools are “25th lowest in California. Hesperia’s residents have a lower income and its schools are rated slightly lower than their neighbors.”
Coming in at number 9 is the county seat, San Bernardino, which is credited with being among the worst five percent per capita in crime as well as having an 11.3 percent unemployment rate and the 8th lowest ranking statewide in education. “Perhaps the only thing surprising about San Bernardino being 9th is that it wasn’t higher. Crime here is horrible, more than 1 in 10 residents are without jobs and …we could go on and on about San Bernardino’s issues,” financialhub.com states. “As professionals continue to flee into the nearby enclaves of East Highlands, Yucaipa and Redlands, the City of San Bernardino, which saw its glory days spike in the late 1970s, will continue to head down the drain and unfortunately, become an area only for those who have no aspirations to exceed in life.”
Joshua Tree is ranked at number 7, with a house vacancy rate of 16 percent and higher than average crime. “There’s a good chance you’ve never been to Joshua Tree, unless 1) you were a Marine stationed at Twentynine Palms or 2) you took a family day trip to the far corners of the desert,” financialhub.com states. “You can see pictures of Joshua trees online. You don’t need to see them in person.”
Coming in at number 3 is Adelanto, with a 13.1 percent unemployment rate, 16.6 household vacancy rate and crime statistics that leave it within the worst 20 percent in California. “Its residents most likely work in nearby Victorville or make the trek through the Cajon Pass to shlep into San Bernardino or Riverside,” according to financialhub.com.
Number two on the list is Lucerne Valley, which financialhub.com says has a 28 percent household vacancy rate and the 32nd longest commute time in California. “Lucerne Valley is another desert town on the fringes of society where there’s nothing to do, residents earn meager salaries, and have long drives to their jobs when they can find them. When you consider the fact that 28% of the homes in Lucerne Valley are vacant, and the public school system is ranked in the bottom 20% for financial support, a case can be made that Lucerne Valley is a real pit. If you haven’t been here, don’t bother. It’s not even worth the extra 20 minute detour on your way to Vegas to see.”
Now comes the point where I take offense. My guess is that those slugs from financialhub.com don’t live in San Bernardino County. Well, I do. With my wealth, I could literally live anywhere on the globe. I have a castle in Germany, a chalet in the Italian Alps, an estate in Marseille, apartments in Venice and Trieste, a house in Lisbon, and a penthouse atop the tallest building in Monaco. I choose to live in San Bernardino County…
And this website or web posting or whatever it is says these are the worst “cities” in California in which to live. Well, for starters, neither Joshua Tree nor Lucerne Valley are cities. Rather, they are unincorporated communities. If the financialhub.com cannot get even that much right, I am not sure how accurate anything it has to say is…

By Zachary Behrens, U.S. Forest Service
SAN BERNARDINO—More than 140 people participated in Saturday’s winter bald eagle count in and around San Bernardino National Forest, observing a total of ten bald eagles. The seasonal count, which takes place during the winter months, is now in its 39th year and is organized by the U.S. Forest Service with California State Parks.
The eagle count locations reported the following:
Big Bear Lake: Five eagles, two adults and three subadults, were seen by 80 eager citizen scientists. This included the pair that made news this week for laying two eggs at their nest on Forest Service-managed land. If all goes well, the eggs should hatch in early February. A “nest cam” from the Friends of Big Bear Valley livestreams the nest day and night and can viewed at http://www.iws.org/livecams.html (Select “Big Bear Eagle Cam, Big Bear Lake). A video clip of the female weathering last week’s winter storm can be view here. To protect the eagles from disturbance, the area surrounding the nest is completely closed to all public entry.
Lake Arrowhead: Three eagles, two adults and a subadult, were spotted by nine citizen scientists.
Lake Hemet: A pair of eagles were observed by 10 citizen scientists.
Lake Perris: Sadly, the 45 participants at Lake Perris State Recreation Area were skunked and did not see any eagles this time. However, Ken Kietzer, a senior environmental scientist for California State Parks, reported that they enjoyed a visit by two ospreys.
Silverwood Lake: No eagles were spotted by the 31 participants.
Count coordinators from the Forest Service and California State Parks would like to thank participants for their dedication in getting up early and participating in the eagle censuses this winter. The success of the eagle counts is entirely dependent on the citizen scientists!
The remaining bald eagle counts for this winter are scheduled for the Saturday mornings of Feb. 10 and March 10.
Big Bear Lake area volunteers will meet at 8 a.m. at the Forest Service’s Big Bear Discovery Center on North Shore Drive (Highway 38) for orientation. Contact Robin Eliason (reliason@fs.fed.us or 909-382-2832) for more information. Please call 909-382-2832 for cancellation due to winter weather conditions – an outgoing message will be left by 6:30 a.m. on the morning of the count, if it has to be cancelled. Contact the Discovery Center (909-382-2790) for information about Eagle Celebrations. There will also be a free slideshow about bald eagles at 11 a.m. after the counts.
Lake Arrowhead/Lake Gregory volunteers will meet at 8 a.m. at the Forest Service’s Lake Arrowhead Ranger Station on Highway 18 for orientation. Contact Robin Eliason (reliason@fs.fed.us or 909-382-2832) for more information. Please call 909-382-2832 for cancellation due to winter weather conditions – an outgoing message will be left by 6:30 a.m. on the morning of the count if it has to be cancelled.
Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area volunteers should plan to meet at the Silverwood Lake’s Visitor Center at 8 a.m. for orientation. Contact Mark Wright for more information about volunteering or taking an eagle tour (760-389-2303 between 8 and 4; or email: mark.wright@parks.ca.gov).
Lake Hemet volunteers should plan on meeting at the Lake Hemet Grocery Store at 8:30 a.m. for orientation. Contact Ann Bowers (annbowers@fs.fed.us or 909-382-2935) for more information.
Lake Perris State Recreation Area volunteers should plan to meet at the Lake Perris Regional Indian Museum at 8 a.m. for orientation. For more information call Lake Perris SRA at 951-940-5600 or the Lake Perris Regional Indian Museum at 951-940-5657.
No experience is needed. Signing up ahead of time is unnecessary – just show up at the designated time and location, dress warmly, bring binoculars and a watch. Observers meet at one of the count locations for a short orientation and then they proceed to their observation sites where they record their observations between 9and 10 a.m. Then they return to the meeting location to turn in the data sheet. The biologists use those data to determine the minimum number of eagles in the area.

Temperatures in the teens are all over the East Coast but California is blooming with fashion. Since we can’t immediately control climate change, one thing we can comfort ourselves with is knowing we can manage fashion. Interesting thing is people are still enjoying lots of black leather and denim, combined with a blooming colorful shirt or top. The jacket is great for the evening chill and denim has always been a California staple. Be sure to add the colorful or floral shirt to go with your outfit. One last thing to look for is the streetwear that comes in forms of hoodies, sweat pants, and sneakers, because it seems this is the California moment and the California fashion community is full of creative people. The the casual chic style goes hand in hand with the great weather our state has to offer. Enjoy your fashion break and keep blooming.

“My style changes every day. I would say its casual chic.” -Chiara Ferragni