By the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee

One would hope that August would be a lighter month for the Basin than the last meeting, which was held in June. However, with a contested land-use appeal in the Homestead Valley area on the August 4 agenda and a controversial mining ordinance update planned for August 18, the meetings are likely to be lively. The agenda for the August 4 meeting is here.

Public Comment

The August 4 meeting will be held at 10 a.m. in the Covington Chambers, First Floor, County Government Center, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., San Bernardino, and the public is welcome to attend and comment in person.

Beginning with this August 4 meeting, the County is adding remote public comment by telephone, which is its mechanism for complying with SB 707, the state law requiring local agencies to offer remote participation.1 To speak, register online beginning at 8:30 a.m. the morning of the meeting through the “Register to Speak” link at publiccomment.sbcounty.gov. You’ll be asked to indicate whether you’ll participate in person or virtually (a phone number is required if virtual) and what items you wish to address. In-person registration is also available at kiosks outside the Board Chambers.2 Written comment can be submitted by email to BoardMeetingComments@cob.sbcounty.gov.

For Basin residents, this telephone option arrives after a two-year decline in local remote access: the County ended the standing interactive-video feed at the Bob Burke Joshua Tree Government Center in 2024, later moving the video site to the Joshua Tree Community Center and offering it only for meetings expected to draw significant local participation.3 4 Whether that in-person video site will be available for a given meeting has become case-by-case;5 residents relying on it should confirm its status with the Clerk of the Board before each meeting, that number is 909.387.3841.

A Closer Look

Item 107 — A Contested Homestead Valley Campground Reaches the Board

The one genuinely contested Basin land-use matter on Tuesday’s agenda is a discussion item with a professionally litigated appeal behind it. The Board will hold a public hearing on Appeal No. PAPL-2026-00003, challenging the Planning Commission’s April approval of the Mercury Dry Camp, a 12-site dry campground on a 7.5-acre parcel at 62076 Mercury Drive, listed both as the Homestead Valley area north of Joshua Tree or North Joshua Tree.6 The project is described as having no water or sewer with a 24 guests maximum. The applicants are David Lee and Joseph Milburn, through JT Prospecting, LLC, represented by the law firm Allen Matkins. The appellant is Wendy Wacker, who owns a home on the 160 acres immediately east of the site and is represented by the firm Fennemore. Land Use Services recommends the Board deny the appeal and uphold the approval.

The dispute turns on a single question: whether a commercial campground open to the paying public belongs on land zoned Rural Living and whether it can be run without anyone required to be on site. A campground is an allowed use in rural residential zoning with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and the County’s finding that the project is compatible rests substantially on the fact that it needs no rezoning.

In response to the appeal, Condition 62, the County’s key new requirement, allows “either a manager on site or an off-site manager within fifteen (15) miles or a 30-minute proximity,” plus cameras and audio monitoring each campsite. That is precisely the arrangement the appeal attacks: the appellant’s appraiser singled out “an operator who may be up to fifteen miles or thirty minutes away,” arguing cameras and audio “cannot detect or address noise, trespass, fire hazards... in real time.” Both sides, in other words, describe the same system; they disagree on whether it is adequate.

After filing a personal appeal in April, Wacker retained the law firm Fennemore and three experts. A third-party acoustician reviewed the County's noise study and found it inadequate under state environmental law: rather than measuring actual background noise at the site, it relied on a single reading taken about four miles away, so it never established how much the campground would raise noise above the desert quiet the neighbors currently have.

Additionally, two property-value experts hired by Wacker argue the campground shifts costs onto neighbors — a "one-directional transfer of value" — and warn that approving it invites similar projects across the area's rural-residential parcels. The appeal's core legal argument is that the facts do not support the findings the County's own code requires to approve the permit. Its experts also proposed that the County adopt specific permit conditions it ultimately did not — among them a restriction on vehicles entering or leaving the site during nighttime hours — and, if the Board won't deny the permit outright, its fallback request is that a full-time on-site manager be made mandatory.

The applicants' formal response, filed July 27, answers the appeal point by point. On the central noise question, they commissioned a new 24-hour survey on July 17–18, 2026, measuring the existing background noise at four spots around the site, which is the on-site measurement the appellant said was missing. To estimate the noise the campground itself would add, their consultant based projections on readings from two much larger campgrounds and calculated the levels at the nearest homes: roughly 30, 26, and 19 A-weighted decibels, below the County's 45-decibel nighttime limit.

That approach — borrowing levels from a 115-site and a 493-site campground to model a 12-site one — is standard practice, but it is also the crux of the appellant's acoustician's dispute: the projection rests on reference levels from other sites and distance math, not on measurement of this use at this location. The one monitoring location that did exceed County standards sat on the eastern side, toward the appellant’s land. The applicants attribute that reading to existing road noise rather than the project.

The applicants make several other points in response. They concede the staff report’s description of the site as “currently vacant” was “imprecise,” but argue the full record disclosed the existing structures and tents. They contend the County retains complete authority to inspect, modify, or revoke the permit at any time. And they offer to accept several added conditions:

• a 24-hour neighbor contact line;

• decibel-only noise monitoring, with no audio recording;

• a neighbor-contact log; and

• a commitment to respond locally within 30 minutes.

Further, the applicants ask the Board to preserve a separate CEQA “small structures” exemption as an alternative basis for approval, citing the County’s 2019 approval of the much larger AutoCamp Joshua Tree. That comparison has a weakness worth noting: AutoCamp abuts the downtown Joshua Tree commercial district, unlike the Mercury site, which sits in a residential area.

There is also a documented history the Board will weigh. The County’s own response to the appeal confirms that code enforcement cited the applicants for unpermitted construction and ordered work halted until the permit process was complete.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the only agency to comment during the environmental review, flagged the original biological study for failing to address two protected species — the desert kit fox and Crotch’s bumble bee — and the County added survey-and-avoidance measures before approving.

Whether camping ever occurred on the site is also disputed. The appellant calls the applicants’ claim that “absolutely” no camping had taken place “an utter falsehood.” The applicants, in turn, submitted a camping-rental platform’s records — declined booking requests and a $0 payout history — to argue the site was never commercially rented.

There is a dispute over noise, nuisance and other potential code violations on the property. Adjacent residents describe, in written comments, a pattern of gunfire prompting Sheriff calls, a brush fire, all-night music, and trespass during earlier informal camping, accounts the County says are not corroborated by any Sheriff or code-enforcement record in its file. The applicants attached the Sheriff’s premises history for the address, which lists alarm and burglary-related calls but no noise, party, firearms, or trespass calls. The staff report documents no Sheriff dispatch on those allegations.

This is the item for Basin residents to watch on August 4: a live, well-funded appeal, a Planning Commission approval the Board can uphold, modify, or overturn, and a question — whether an unstaffed commercial use fits a residential desert neighborhood — that a commissioner reportedly called “our test case.” The Morongo Basin Conservation Association, which has urged fuller environmental review on most Basin development, notes that this and several other recent Basin projects (Lovemore Ranch, the Cactus Club Hotel, and the Pipes Canyon subdivision) were approved on Mitigated Negative Declarations.

The support documents for this item can be reviewed here (and yes, there are 21 of them).

We’re kicking off our summer subscription drive! Help the Desert Trumpet reach 1600 subscribers by clicking the button below and receiving the Desert Trumpet in your inbox!

Subscribe now

Item 91 — Landers Road District: The Last Zone Votes No, Too

This closes out the story we covered from the June 23 agenda, when four Landers-area road zones voted on maintenance-charge increases and three rejected them. The straggler was Zone R-15 (Landers proper), whose mailed-ballot election ran later. The result is now before the Board for certification — and it’s another no.

Zone R-15 property owners rejected the increase, with about 45 percent voting in favor — short of the majority needed to pass, and close to the margin by which Flamingo Heights turned down its own increase in June. The existing charge stays in place. That makes it a clean sweep of rejection across the Landers-area zones except Copper Mountain, which was the lone yes in June. As we noted then, zones that repeatedly reject increases may eventually face a harder question — whether the County keeps maintaining roads at a charge that hasn’t changed in decades or begins the process of dissolving the zones. This vote doesn’t trigger that on its own, but it adds Zone R-15 to the list of zones rejecting increases.

Basin-Specific Items

Item 97 — Fire Mutual Aid Renewal with the Marine Base (Twentynine Palms). The County Fire Protection District extends its automatic-and mutual-aid agreement with the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms by three years, through June 30, 2029, for continued shared fire and rescue response. A routine but consequential renewal, given how much of the eastern Basin's fire response depends on this County–military relationship. Non-financial.

Broader Items with Basin Impact

Item 49 — Local Emergency Continued: December 2025 Adverse Weather. The Board continues the local emergency proclamation from the December 2025 storm event, first proclaimed December 25 and ratified December 29. A County-wide declaration, but the Basin’s flood-prone communities from Morongo Valley to Wonder Valley are among those exposed to the storm damage these proclamations address. Continuing the emergency keeps recovery and funding mechanisms open.

Item 95 — Fire Service Zone FP-5 Special Tax. The Fire Protection District sets the FP-5 parcel tax for 2026-27 at $187.79, a small increase over last year. FP-5 is the district’s broad service zone covering much of the unincorporated County, so this is a line item many Basin property owners will see on their tax bill. Some areas such as Morongo Valley are excluded because they have their own fire department.

Item 30 — Wraparound Mental Health Contracts. The County increases its wraparound mental-health contracts, including funding for Mountain Counseling & Training, a provider that serves Basin and high-desert youth. The staff report doesn’t break out service areas geographically, but Mountain Counseling’s footprint reaches Basin families.

Item 39 — Secure Rural Schools Funding. The Board acts to continue the County’s share of federal Secure Rural Schools funding, which is federal forest-revenue money that supports rural County services and roads, relevant to the Basin’s forest-adjacent and unincorporated communities, though not Basin-specific.

Item 83 — June Primary Election Results Certified. The Board accepts the certified results of the June 2, 2026, statewide primary and declares the winners for offices in its jurisdiction. County-wide, but the record of how Basin precincts voted lives in this certification.

Item 103 — Lobbyist Transparency Ordinance (Introduction). The Board introduces an ordinance adding lobbyist registration, transparency, and reporting rules to the County code, with final adoption expected later in the month. A County-wide governance measure with no specific Basin angle, but we are flagging it for readers who follow how the County regulates influence on its own decisions.

This preview was produced with AI assistance, consistent with our AI Policy, and reviewed by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee. We provide it as a starting point for your own review of the agenda and its supporting documents, not as a substitute. Corrections and feedback are welcome.

Hi, new subscribers! The Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Support the Desert Trumpet’s coverage of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors — become a paid subscriber!

The Desert Trumpet’s reporting will always be free. That said, did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

By the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee

What did the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decide at the June 9 and June 23, 2026, regular meetings? This recap does not cover the June 11 special closed-session meeting, which was limited to performance evaluations of the Chief Executive Officer and County Counsel under Government Code §54957. District 3 is large so focus on Morongo Basin items only.

Following the agenda previews we published for the June 9 and June 23 meetings, this is our first recap of Board actions at the meetings. We lead with the items that ran across both meetings, then list what the Board did on every Morongo Basin specific and impact item, by date.

Across both meetings

Solar — and a candid word from the Chair about energy development in District 3. Two June 23 items turned on how the County sites solar: the appeal of the denied Bear Valley project near Erwin Lake (Item 203) and the Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion (Item 205). We framed both in our preview against the already-approved Lear Solar project just outside Twentynine Palms. We also did a deep dive into the approval of the Lear Solar project.

During the Bear Valley discussion, Board Chair and District 3 representative Dawn Rowe, said something the Basin should sit up for:

The third district is the area that we have developable land for energy, and that’s just unfortunate, because it’s not in some of the other districts.

In plain terms, the Chair identified District 3 — the Basin’s district, our district — as the County’s energy-development frontier, a designation that lands squarely on the unincorporated and economically disadvantaged Basin communities most exposed to large-scale solar.

The Bear Valley appeal itself drew more than an hour of testimony, overwhelmingly from Bear Valley Electric Service employees in favor and immediate neighbors opposed on grounds of zoning, wildlife corridor, fire risk, and lack of notice. The Board voted 3–2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project, with Supervisors Curt Hagman and Jesse Armendarez voting no. The speakers are not Basin residents — the project and its neighbors are in the Big Bear area — but the objections they raised, that they received no notice and that the site sits in a functioning wildlife corridor, are the same two issues we flagged in the Lear approval, which is why the item is worth watching from the Basin.

A correction to our June 23 preview: we identified the appellant as EDF Renewables. The applicant and appellant is Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.; EDF Renewables Distribution-Scale Power is the project’s development and permitting partner, not the applicant. Appearing for the project were Paul Marconi, president of Bear Valley Electric Service; Jannik Tam of EDF Renewables; and land-use counsel Dan Quinley of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

On Item 205, the Energy Ad Hoc Committee, which is comprised of Supervisors Rowe and Hagman, took direction from the other supervisors. Supervisor Armendarez asked the committee to consider a regional, multi-county approach coordinating with neighboring counties, to look at nuclear options, to prioritize siting on already-disturbed or contaminated land over open desert, and to weigh energy development against the housing crisis.

Supervisor Hagman framed the scale of the challenge, citing his view that California must roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades. Supervisor Rowe emphasized community outreach, noting that desert residents turn out in force on these projects because developers too often look at the desert and “think it’s big and open space,” and said the Morongo Basin Conservation Association had brought her recommendations for the committee. What it pursues could shape County solar-siting policy Basin-wide.

Basin water rates: adopted, while others organized to block theirs. The two meetings are two halves of one story. On June 9 the Board held the Proposition 218 hearing on the three Basin systems in County Service Area 70 — Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) and Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3), both in Morongo Valley, and Pioneertown (Zone W-4) — and approved introduction of the rate ordinance unanimously, on a motion by Supervisor Paul Cook seconded by Vice Chair Joe Baca, Jr.

County staff confirmed from the dais that none of the zones in that hearing drew a majority protest. No resident of any of the three Basin communities spoke to the item. On June 23 the Board gave the ordinance final adoption on the consent calendar, locking the five-year schedules through 2030. As we reported from the rate study in June, that means Pioneertown’s typical fixed charge rises about 61% and its per-unit usage rate about 92% over five years, and the Little Morongo Heights fund is projected to run roughly $1.3 million into deficit by 2030 even with the increases. The County’s own June 9 summary characterized the countywide adjustments as ranging “approximately 1.7% to 10%,” framing that does not surface those five-year Basin totals.

Pay attention to where the protest energy was, and wasn’t. Of the June 9 rate hearings, the one successful majority protest came from Lytle Creek (Zone S-3) in the Cajon Pass — not the Basin — where residents organized, reached the 56.1% Proposition 218 threshold, and blocked their proposed sewer increase outright.

In Oak Hills (Zone J), on the Victor Valley side, a resident-led drive gathered 557 protest letters and speakers alleged the Prop 218 notices were never properly delivered, but that effort fell short of the majority needed and the increase there was not blocked.

The Morongo Basin’s three water systems, by contrast, drew no organized protest and no testimony from the affected communities. Under Proposition 218 these rates move forward unless a majority of affected property owners formally protest; Lytle Creek shows that threshold can be met, but it takes organizing the Basin zones did not see.

Children and Family Services. The County’s Children and Family Services (CFS) department was a through-line at both meetings. On June 9, parents and advocates raised concerns about CFS during general public comment, and Supervisor Armendarez and CEO Luther Smoke directed them to return June 23 for a scheduled CFS workshop, a presentation the Board’s Child Welfare ad hoc committee had requested specifically to address mounting public criticism. That presentation (Item 206) came June 23 as a receive-and-file overview and consumed much of the afternoon.

The department walked the Board through how the child-welfare system works: roughly 30,000 calls a year to the child-abuse hotline, the screening and investigation funnel that narrows to a much smaller number of substantiated cases and fewer removals still, a stated priority of keeping children with family through kinship placement rather than group settings, caseload reductions credited to staffing investments, and a 2025 permanency rate of about 85% through reunification, guardianship, or adoption. The department also described an independent review by national child-welfare experts and the ongoing work of the ad hoc committee.

The public comment attached to the presentation ran long and pointed. Parents, grandparents, and former foster youth told the Board that children were removed without adequate basis or notice, that completed case-plan services went uncredited, and that reunification dragged on for years; several argued that federal foster-care funding creates a financial incentive to remove children rather than reunify families.

A few speakers used the period to allege misconduct by County officials. These accounts come from individuals describing confidential dependency cases the County cannot discuss publicly, and the Desert Trumpet has not independently verified them; we report them as what speakers told the Board. Most of the speakers did not state a community of residence, and the few who did named places outside the Basin.

For Basin readers, the overview still matters: these are services that reach Basin families through the County system, including the Joshua Tree Mental Health Court and school-based work in Morongo Unified, though the presentation, like the agenda as a whole, described the system at the County level without breaking out the Basin or other rural areas.

A note on how the County Board works: member comments. One feature of these meetings has no real parallel in the Twentynine Palms or Yucca Valley council format Basin residents may be more familiar with. Near the top of the meeting, before the discussion items, each supervisor takes a turn highlighting items on the day’s agenda and recapping events from their district. On June 23, for instance, Supervisor Hagman used his turn to flag the Energy Ad Hoc discussion (Item 205) and his view that California needs to roughly double its electrical output over the next two decades, which telegraphed well before the item came up where he stood and why it mattered to him. The practice gives the public an early read on which items the Board considers significant and how individual supervisors are thinking about them, though it can also mean an item’s framing is set before any public testimony is heard.

June 9 meeting

Of the 135 items on the June 9 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–121) passed in a single vote with no Basin item pulled. The Basin items it carried:

Basin-Specific:

• Item 20 — Flamingo Heights tax-sale rescission.

• Item 97 — Morongo Basin Unity Home; the Basin’s domestic-violence shelter provider’s contract doubles to $705,902.

• Item 102 — CSA 70 special taxes (Yucca Mesa, Wonder Valley, plus Morongo Valley and Pioneertown standby charges).

• Item 104 — Joshua Tree / Family Service Association food-services license.

Broader Items with Basin Impact:

• Items 23 and 25 — children’s mental health ($125.1M) and substance-use treatment; the children’s mental-health contracts name high-desert providers Desert/Mountain Children’s Center and Mountain Counseling & Training.

• Item 69 — refuse permits.

• Item 80 — Onyx Peak communications site.

Two items were heard separately rather than on consent:

Item 122 — Basin water-rate hearing. Heard as a discussion item; passed unanimously (see “Across both meetings”).

Item 126 — County 2026-27 budget. Adopted; a roughly $10.9 billion total spending plan including about $273.7 million in new County priorities. During the budget hearing, Pauline Pisano, a Flamingo Heights resident, urged the Board to remove what she described as funding for automated license-plate-reader and surveillance camera systems, including Flock cameras, from the budget. She cited state law SB 34 and other California cities that have canceled Flock contracts over data-access concerns, and said high-desert residents had gathered more than 1,000 signatures across two petitions opposing surveillance expansion.

June 23 meeting

Of the 206 items on the June 23 agenda, the consent calendar (items 2–200) passed in a single vote with only Item 70 pulled for discussion. The Basin items it carried:

Basin-Specific:

• Items 13 & 17 — Reach Out Morongo Basin (+$135,000 combined for caregiver and older-adult services).

• Item 47 — crisis residential treatment contracts (+$9.2 million, to $83.2 million); the County’s own summary names the “Eastern Desert” region, which ties in to the Morongo Basin, among the service areas. (Not in our preview; we fold it in here.)

• Item 115 — waste-disposal renewals (Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley).

• Item 134 — Donnell Hill communications-site license (Twentynine Palms).

• Item 157 — Sheriff patrol contracts (~$13.7 million combined for Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley).

• Item 169 — CSA 70 road-district ballot results (Copper Mountain, Flamingo Heights, Yucca Mesa East and West). Copper Mountain approved its increase; the other three rejected theirs, and the County will begin proceedings to dissolve them, after which their fees end and road maintenance through the districts stops.

• Item 178 — Fire Station 41 land donation (Yucca Valley).

• Item 200 — Basin water-rate ordinance, final adoption (see “Across both meetings”).

• Item 78 — special assessments on abated nuisance properties; primarily Lucerne Valley parcels, with one in Landers. (Not in our preview.)

Broader Items with Basin Impact:

• Item 3 — Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District appointment.

• Item 44 — Student Assistance Program / behavioral health (+$10.4 million; Desert/Mountain, Mountain Counseling).

• Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work).

• Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park); the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.

Heard separately, as discussion items or presentations:

Item 70 — Measure I transportation sales-tax extension. Pulled from consent; the Board placed it on the November ballot with no rate increase. SB CTA’s Otis Greer presented. Supervisor Rowe relayed a Lucerne Valley concern that aggregate hauled out of that area’s mines generates road wear without generating proportional Measure I revenue locally, under the measure’s return-to-source structure.

Item 122 — SB 1 road-maintenance list (includes Yucca Valley-area work). Adopted on consent.

Item 196 — CSA 70 parks water/wastewater maintenance (10-year; Big Morongo Regional Park). Approved on consent; the 10-year term is nonstandard for the County.

Item 204 — floodplain regulations ordinance. Introduced and adopted after a public hearing that drew no comment.

Item 205 — Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion. A discussion item; covered above under “Across both meetings.”

Item 206 — Children and Family Services overview. A receive-and-file presentation; covered above under “Across both meetings.”

The Board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2026, at the County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, with closed session beginning at 9:00 a.m.

This recap was produced with AI assistance and human review by the Desert Trumpet’s San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee. Corrections and feedback are welcome.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.

Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

By The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee

Editor’s note:
Last month, as an internal experiment, we used our AI, Anthropic’s Claude, to produce a breakdown of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (BOS) agenda for their May 19 meeting. What it surfaced was surprising — the City of Twentynine Palms had allowed the county contract for downtown sewer and septic maintenance to lapse on March 31, leaving the system unattended except for emergencies for two months. We also flagged a solar field installation just over the Twentynine Palms city border, which had caught some neighboring residents by surprise.

That experiment compelled us to produce our first public breakdown, of the June 9 agenda, which we sent to our email subscribers. What you’re reading now is our second, and the first we’re publishing in full rather than sending by email alone. The solar project near the Twentynine Palms border is part of what convinced us this coverage matters enough to share more broadly — it’s directly relevant to items on Tuesday’s agenda, and we’ve reported on it in more depth below.

This analysis is AI-produced, with more human review than our earlier efforts but still far from comprehensive. It is limited to the Morongo Basin as defined by criteria we’ve fed to Claude. We’re sharing it because our county representatives leave residents little time to review what they’re voting on — agendas are issued at 5 p.m. on a Friday for a meeting the following Tuesday at 10 a.m. That’s barely a business day to digest a document that runs 62 pages before a single supporting document is opened and that references millions of dollars in spending.

For several items we’ve gone past the agenda summary and into the supporting documents, and we provide links so you can read them yourself and draw your own conclusions. We cover those items first, under the heading “A Closer Look” then dive into lists of the “Basin-Specific Items” and finally the “Broader Items with Basin Impact” in the agenda.

We don’t currently have the capacity to report on the outcome of individual meetings, but we are assessing whether we can produce a monthly summary of the actions the Board takes on the items we highlight so readers can track what was actually decided. If that’s something you’d find useful, let us know.

AI makes mistakes, and we welcome corrections. We’re also still building a review committee, similar to the one in place for our Yucca Valley coverage, to help catch errors and advise on which items deserve a deeper dive. Like our Yucca Valley committee, reviewers are anonymous. We currently have representatives from Desert Heights, Flamingo Heights, Joshua Tree (central) and Morongo Valley. If you’re interested in participating, email us at editor@deserttrumpet.org with BOS review in the subject line.

Before we dive into the BOS agenda, a note from the June 4 County Planning Commission meeting

Landers area residents may want to be aware that the San Bernardino County Planning Commission approved a significant expansion of the Lonely Dove Motel at its June 4 meeting. (The county’s planning records call it “Lonely Dove”; the business operates as the Lonesome Dove Motel.) The project at 1473 Wamego Trail in the Homestead Valley community would expand the existing 8-room motel to roughly 40 units1 across two 5-acre parcels. According to the project’s environmental filing, the western parcel where the existing motel sits would add 12 rooms in six free-standing structures plus an 1,800-square-foot restaurant, while the currently vacant eastern parcel would take the bulk of the expansion: 20 more rooms in ten structures, a 1,000-square-foot restaurant, a miniature golf facility, and a prefabricated “futuro” home. The approval includes a partial zone change from Rural Living to Special Development-Residential. The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, meaning the county found potential environmental impacts could be reduced to acceptable levels through mitigation measures.

The Board of Supervisors is the appeal body for Planning Commission decisions; if you have concerns, confirm the appeal window with the county’s Land Use Services department at (909) 387-8311.

June 23 County Board of Supervisors Agenda

Of the 206 items on the June 23 agenda, we’ve identified the following as relevant to Basin residents. As a reminder, items 2–200 are on the consent calendar and approved with a single vote, while items 201 and on are discussion items.

Notably, Joshua Tree, the county’s own services hub for the Basin and home to the Bob Burke Government Center, does not appear by name anywhere in this 206-item agenda.

Public Comment

The BOS information on Public Comment can be found here.

In person public comment can be made at the 10 am meetings located at:
Covington Chambers
County Government Center, First Floor
385 N. Arrowhead Ave.
San Bernardino

Additionally there are three options for written public comment:

• Online: publiccomments.cob.sbcounty.gov

• Via email: BoardMeetingComments@cob.sbcounty.gov

• Via U.S. mail: San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave, 2nd Fl., San Bernardino, CA 92415

As of July 1, the BOS will offer remote telephone participation for public comment. Details here.

A Closer Look

For the items below, we went past the agenda summary and into the support documents the county posts alongside it. These are the top four items that we think Basin readers would be most interested in.

The Lear Solar Project and the Rules the County Set for Itself (Items 203 & 205)

A pair of Tuesday's agenda items turn on how the county handles solar — Item 203, an appeal of a denied solar project in the Bear Valley area, and Item 205, the Energy Ad Hoc Committee discussion. Both read more clearly against a project the county has already approved: the 9.9-megawatt Lear Solar Project, on unincorporated county land just outside the Twentynine Palms city limits, near Lear Avenue and Mesa Drive in Desert Heights. The county Planning Commission approved it in January 2025, and construction began in early 2026. Our review of the county’s own records found that the approval appears to depart from rules the county wrote for itself.

Both of those departures are worth flagging now, and we'll examine them more fully in a forthcoming report. First, the county’s own staff report contradicts itself on whether the site sits within Twentynine Palms’ sphere of influence: its cover page lists the “City Sphere of Influence” as Twentynine Palms — as does LAFCO’s mapping — yet a required finding states the site “is not located within the Sphere of Influence of a city.” That second determination let the county sidestep its own rule that a solar project within a city’s sphere of influence be consistent with that city’s zoning — and with it, any reckoning with the City’s solar ban.2 Second, the county appears not to have notified the water district serving the site: the general manager of the Twentynine Palms Water District, Matt Shragge, says the district knew nothing of the project until it was already approved and being fenced — though county code requires that the water agency be notified when the application is accepted. 3

The Lear project was approved by the county, not the City, and that distinction is what made the approval possible. The site is zoned Rural Living, which already permits solar under 10 megawatts with a Conditional Use Permit, so no zone change was needed, and the county classified it as a Community-Oriented Renewable Energy (CORE) facility. Because the parcel is unincorporated, the approval ran through the county even though the project is plainly visible from within Twentynine Palms — a city that has banned new solar farms within its own limits since 2012, and that rejected the E-Group solar proposal inside city limits in March 2026 after hours of public testimony.

That contrast is what makes Item 203 worth watching. Developer EDF Renewables, with Bear Valley Electric Service, proposed a 5-megawatt facility on a 29.9-acre parcel in the unincorporated Erwin Lake area at the east end of Big Bear Valley, off Highway 38 — the route many Basin residents take to Big Bear. But that parcel is zoned Residential Single, one-acre minimum, so the applicant needed both a General Plan Amendment and a full zone change to Rural Living — a far higher bar than Lear faced. The Planning Commission denied it, and on Tuesday the Board is asked to uphold that denial, which staff recommend. Projects on rural-zoned vacant land move relatively smoothly; projects that require rezoning residential or community-adjacent land face a much steeper climb.

The CORE label the county used for Lear also deserves scrutiny. The Renewable Energy and Conservation Element reserves it for facilities primarily serving local users, and the staff report names Joshua Tree and Twentynine Palms as the intended beneficiaries — but at distances of 9 and 5 miles that appear to measure to city cores, not boundaries; the site is actually about 0.75 miles north of the Twentynine Palms city limit. The power feeds the SCE grid rather than specific local customers. That gap between the policy language and the reality on the ground is exactly the kind of question the Energy Ad Hoc Committee should be taking up.

Item 205 is where those questions could surface. It's a discussion item set for 1:30 p.m. on June 23, with Supervisor Rowe presenting, in which the Energy Ad Hoc Committee explores topics for further study. No staff report has been posted, so residents have no way to know in advance whether solar siting is among the topics — and what the committee chooses to pursue could shape county solar siting policy Basin-wide.

The entire Basin — particularly the unincorporated communities most exposed to large-scale energy development, including Landers, Johnson Valley, Wonder Valley, Desert Heights, Flamingo Heights, and Copper Mountain — has a stake in how the committee weighs local consistency, notice, and the “community-oriented” standard. Residents who want to weigh in can do so in person or in writing before the meeting begins.

Source: PROJ-2023-00170 (Lear Solar), San Bernardino County Land Use Services, including the Planning Commission staff report and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; PROJ-2025-00036 (Bear Valley Solar), CEQA record; interview with Matt Shragge, Twentynine Palms Water District; Desert Trumpet reporting, March 2026; Items 203 and 205 agenda text, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 169 — Landers-Area Road Districts: One Zone Says Yes, Three Say No — and May Be Dissolved

This item certifies the results of mailed-ballot elections held June 6 on proposed road maintenance charge increases across four CSA 70 zones, all of which maintain dirt roads in the Landers area. The results were split, and the consequences for the three zones that voted no are significant.

First, the history that explains the increases. These zones were formed between 1986 and 1991 to maintain roughly 147 miles of dirt roads, with annual charges of $15 to $35 per parcel. Those charges were never adjusted for inflation and have stayed flat for 36 to 42 years. The county notes that if a 3% annual adjustment had been built in from the start, the charges would already sit between $70 and $100 — which is essentially what it asked property owners to approve.

Copper Mountain (Zone R-19) was the only yes: owners approved raising the charge from $20 to $75 per parcel per year, with up to 3% annual inflation adjustments, by 335 to 310 — 51.9%. That single increase lifts the four zones’ combined annual revenue from about $66,050 to roughly $178,580.

The other three voted no, two of them decisively. Yucca Mesa East (Zone R-29) rejected a proposed $30-to-$90 increase by nearly three to one (28.6% in favor). Yucca Mesa West (Zone R-26) rejected $35 to $100 (43.4%). Flamingo Heights (Zone R-20) came closest at 45.1%, rejecting a proposed jump from $15 to $90. Existing charges stay in place for all three.

Here’s the part Landers-area readers should not miss: because these three zones rejected increases now and also rejected them in 2017, the county says it will begin the preliminary steps to ask the Board whether to dissolve the three zones entirely. In practical terms, property owners who twice declined to pay more for road maintenance may find the service withdrawn rather than continued at the current level. The county says it will notify affected property owners as those proceedings move forward.

Source: Item 169 support documents, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 200 — Water Rate Ordinance: Basin Zones Now Set Through 2030

This is the closing chapter on the story we first reported from the June 9 agenda. The Board adopts the ordinance formally establishing the five-year water and sanitation rate schedules for the three Basin CSA 70 water systems: Little Morongo Heights (Zone F), Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3), and Pioneertown (Zone W-4).

The public hearing was held June 9. The county reported receiving only one written objection across all zones in that hearing — from a Hacienda Heights (W-3) customer — well short of the Proposition 218 majority-protest threshold that would have blocked the increases. With no successful protest, the ordinance moves to adoption here without further public input.

What that means practically: the five-year rate schedules we reported on after the June 9 meeting are now locked in. Pioneertown customers face a 61% increase in fixed monthly charges and a 92% jump in per-unit water usage rates over five years. Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) faces modest fixed-charge increases but a fund projected to run roughly $1.3 million into deficit by 2030. Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3) sees the steepest first-year usage rate jump of the three zones.

For full rate figures, see our June 9 breakdown. The ordinance adoption here is procedurally routine — but it’s the moment the increases become binding.

Source: Item 200 agenda text; see also Item 122 support documents from the June 9, 2026 Board meeting, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 178 — Yucca Valley Donates Land for New Fire Station 41

The Town of Yucca Valley is donating a 0.86-acre vacant parcel at 7238 Joshua Lane to the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District for the new Fire Station 41 project — at no cost to the Fire District beyond approximately $15,000 in transaction expenses including title insurance and recording fees. The parcel joins an adjacent lot the District already purchased in April 2024, and together they’ll be the site of a new station that replaces the existing one on 29 Palms Highway South.

In exchange, a companion MOU gives Yucca Valley shared use of a portion of the existing Station 41 property at 57201 29 Palms Highway South as the town’s emergency operations center, at no charge, for up to five years. That’s a meaningful quid pro quo for a town that doesn’t have its own municipal fire department and relies entirely on the county Fire District for emergency services. The deal also carries a 12-month clawback provision: the Town can reclaim the land if the District uses it for anything other than fire and emergency response — a standard safeguard tying the donation to its stated purpose.

The environmental review for the new station was completed in November 2025, so this approval is largely the land-assembly step before construction.

Source: Item 178 agenda text, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Basin-Specific Items

• Items 13 and 17 — Reach Out Morongo Basin: $135,000 More for Caregivers and Older Adults. Two separate contract amendments increase funding for Reach Out Morongo Basin, the Basin’s primary nonprofit serving family caregivers and older adults. Item 13 adds $95,000 to its family caregiver support contract, bringing it to $175,000 through June 2027. Item 17 adds $40,000 to its older adult supportive services contract, bringing that one to $140,000 through the same date.

• Item 115 — Waste Disposal Agreement renewals — Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley. Nine-year extensions locking in solid waste disposal rates for the City of Twentynine Palms and the Town of Yucca Valley at 83% of the county’s posted gate rate through June 2035.

• Item 134 — Donnell Hill Communications Site license — Twentynine Palms. A three-way arrangement, stacked: the Water District owns the land, the county leases it and maintains the equipment shelter and tower, and the City of Twentynine Palms now licenses antenna space from the county. The five-year agreement generates $27,029 in county revenue, including a one-time $500 administrative fee.

• Item 157 — Sheriff patrol contract renewals — Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley. Annual renewals of the Sheriff’s law enforcement contracts: City of Twentynine Palms at $6,220,995 and Town of Yucca Valley at $7,435,821 — a combined ~$13.7 million for Basin law enforcement in 2026-27, part of a $249.5 million package across 14 contracting cities and towns. This is the county’s side of contracts each town also approves on its own; we covered the cost pressures these contracts put on local budgets in our coverage of the Twentynine Palms and Yucca Valley agendas.

• Item 169 — CSA 70 road charge ballot results — Copper Mountain, Flamingo Heights, Yucca Mesa. The Board certifies June 6 mailed-ballot elections on road maintenance charge increases across four Landers-area zones. Copper Mountain approved its increase; Flamingo Heights, Yucca Mesa West, and Yucca Mesa East all rejected theirs. The three failing zones now face possible dissolution — we take a closer look below.

• Item 178 — New Fire Station 41 land acquisition — Yucca Valley. The County Fire District accepts a donated 0.86-acre parcel at 7238 Joshua Lane from the Town of Yucca Valley for the new Fire Station 41, which will replace the existing station on 29 Palms Highway South. We take a closer look below.

• Item 200 — Water/sanitation rate ordinance — Basin CSA 70 zones (final adoption). Final adoption of the ordinance setting 2026-27 through 2030-31 water and sanitation rates for the Basin’s three CSA 70 systems — Little Morongo Heights (Zone F), Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3), and Pioneertown (Zone W-4). The follow-through from the June 9 public hearing; we take a closer look below.

Broader Items with Basin Impact

• Item 3 — Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District appointment — Rowe presenting. Supervisor Rowe sponsors the appointment of Nicolette Salazar to the board of the Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District (RCD), in lieu of an election. The district is a vast special district spanning the high desert from the Victor Valley to the Arizona border, and it includes the entire Morongo Basin. The RCD has done conservation and post-fire recovery work in Basin communities, including after the Sawtooth Fire in the Morongo Valley and Pioneertown areas. The RCD develops programs for soil, water, and habitat conservation on the lands within its boundaries.

• Item 44 — Student Assistance Program / Behavioral Health — Desert/Mountain Children’s Center and Mountain Counseling & Training. Contract amendments increasing the county’s Student Assistance Program, which are school-based behavioral health services for children and youth, by a combined $10.4 million across six providers countywide. Two of the six contractors serve the Basin and high desert: Desert/Mountain Children’s Center ($2,665,298 increase, to $20,789,393) and Mountain Counseling & Training ($559,295 increase, to $1,948,880). The county’s staff report does not name the Morongo Basin specifically or break out service areas by geography, but Basin school-age children receiving behavioral health services through MUSD are among the students these contracts support.

• Item 122 — SB 1 Road Maintenance project list for 2026-27. Resolution adopting the Senate Bill 1 gas-tax road repair project list for the coming fiscal year, identifying 18 projects totaling $49.1 million countywide. One project is in the Basin: Aberdeen Drive and other roads in the Yucca Valley area ($2,216,000), with chip seal and fog seal work scheduled July 2026 through December 2027. Last year’s SB 1 list also included a completed Basin project: chip seal work on Amboy Road and Pole Line Road for $1,034,000.

• Item 196 — CSA 70 water and wastewater maintenance at Regional Parks ($10.4M).Ten-year agreement for CSA 70 to provide preventative maintenance and emergency response for water and wastewater systems at all county Regional Parks — including Big Morongo Regional Park in Morongo Valley, the Basin’s county-owned park. The agreement covers potable water systems, irrigation, and wastewater treatment. The ten-year term is non-standard; the county’s norm is five years.

• Item 204 — Floodplain regulations ordinance. Introduction of an ordinance amending the county’s floodplain safety regulations across multiple code sections. Flash flooding is a serious and recurring threat throughout the Basin. SR-62 through Twentynine Palms has been closed repeatedly by monsoon floods, most recently in July 2024, and flooding affects communities from Morongo Valley to Wonder Valley. County floodplain rules shape what gets built and what protections apply in high-risk desert communities.

• Item 206 — Children and Family Services department overview (1:30 p.m. presentation). A board presentation on the structure, funding, oversight, and services of Children and Family Services countywide. Not a vote, but a window into a department whose work directly affects Basin families and an opportunity to ask where rural high-desert communities fit in the department’s service model.

This preview was produced with AI assistance, consistent with the approach described in our AI Policy. Human review is provided by The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Resident Review Committee, a volunteer group of Morongo Basin residents with knowledge of local government and community affairs. Committee members are known to Desert Trumpet staff and to one another, but have chosen to remain anonymous due to concerns about retaliation.

We provide this preview as a starting point for your own review of the agenda and its supporting documents, not as a substitute for them. Corrections and feedback are welcome.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Help us cover the Board of Supervisors — Become a paid subscriber!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complimentary tickets

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share

A few weeks ago, as an experiment, we’ve used our AI, Anthropic’s Claude, to produce a breakdown of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (BOS) agenda for their May 19 meeting. What it surfaced was surprising - the City of Twentynine Palms had allowed the County contract for the downtown sewer / septic maintenance to lapse on March 31 leaving the system unattended except for emergencies for two months. Additionally over the last few months, residents became aware of a solar field installation just over the City of Twentynine Palms border that caught some neighboring residents by surprise.

This prompted what you are reading today — a structured summary of June 9 BOS agenda. This analysis is AI-produced and limited to regions defined as the Morongo Basin as determined by criteria fed to Claude. For this agenda breakdown, we asked it a few guiding questions, but there has been little human review otherwise.

We’re sharing this breakdown because our County representatives leave residents little time to review what they’re voting on — agendas are issued at 5 p.m. on a Friday for a meeting the following Tuesday at 10 a.m. That’s barely a business day to digest a document that runs 43 pages before a single supporting document is opened, and that references millions of dollars in spending.

So, we’re doing what we can to distribute the information. For a few items, we provide links to the source documents so you can review them yourself and draw your own conclusions. Because we’ve done so little human review of the content, we’re seeing this as a service provided to our subscribers via email only that isn’t published on our website or distributed on our social media.

AI makes mistakes, and we hope to organize a review committee similar to what’s in place for our new Yucca Valley coverage to help catch errors and advise on which items deserve a deeper dive. If you are interested in participating please email us at editor@deserttrumpet.org with BOS review in the subject line.

Public Comment

The BOS information on Public Comment can be found here.

In person public comment can be made at the 10am meetings located at:
Covington Chambers
County Government Center, First Floor
385 N. Arrowhead Ave.
San Bernardino

Additionally there are three options for written public comment:

• Online: publiccomments.cob.sbcounty.gov

• Via email: BoardMeetingComments@cob.sbcounty.gov

• Via U.S. mail: San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave, 2nd Fl., San Bernardino, CA 92415

As of July 1, the BOS wlll be required by state law to provide remote participation options.

Morongo Basin items on
the June 9 County Board of Supervisors Agenda

We’ve instructed the AI to provide two lists: one for Basin-Specific items that name a Morongo Basin community, institution, or program directly, and one for Broader Items with Basin Impact — countywide or regional matters whose funding or policy reaches Basin residents even when we aren’t named.

Of the 135 items on the June 9 agenda, we then pulled four for closer analysis via the support documents, and we share what we found below. When reviewing agenda items note that 2-121 are on the consent calendar and approved with a single vote, while 122 - on are discussion items.

Basin-Specific Items

• Item 20 — Flamingo Heights tax sale rescission. Resolution rescinding the tax sale of a parcel in Flamingo Heights.

• Item 97 — Morongo Basin Unity Home. The Basin’s domestic-violence shelter provider; contract doubles from $352,951 to $705,902.

• Item 102 — CSA 70 special taxes. Annual special-tax resolutions naming several Basin zones: Yucca Mesa (Mesa TV), Wonder Valley (TV and Zone M), plus water/sewer standby charges for Morongo Valley and Pioneertown. Mostly no increase.

• Item 104 — Joshua Tree / Family Service Association. Five-year license for the commercial-kitchen building at the Joshua Tree Community Center (6171 Sunburst) for family food services.

• Item 122 — Water & sanitation rate increases (Public Hearing). Five-year rate hikes covering three Basin water systems: two within Morongo Valley — Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) and Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3) — plus Pioneertown (Zone W-4).

Broader Items with Basin Impact

• Item 23 — School-Aged Treatment Services ($125M). Includes high-desert providers Mountain Counseling & Training and Desert/Mountain Children’s Center.

• Item 25 — Substance use treatment. High Desert Child, Adolescent and Family Services Center receives a $3.2M increase.

• Item 69 — Refuse permits. Class A permits for haulers serving unincorporated areas, including Basin communities.

• Item 80 — Onyx Peak emergency-communications site. Red Cross radio/antenna license (District 3, near Big Bear).

• Item 121 — Board meeting rules. Ordinance amending the code section governing public comment at these meetings.

• Item 126 — County 2026-27 budget. The full county budget; sets service levels for roads, sheriff patrol, and special districts Basin-wide.

• Item 129 — CSA budget hearing. Companion budget for the County Service Areas that deliver Basin water, sewer, and lighting.

• Item 134 — Behavioral Health Services Act 2026-29 Plan ($2.3B). The three-year framework funding county mental-health services, including the Joshua Tree Mental Health Court.

Like this? We can do more with your paid subscription!

Subscribe now

A Closer Look

For the items below, we went past the agenda summary and into the support documents the county posts alongside it. These are the items that we think Basin readers would be most interested in.

Item 122 — Water Rate Increases in Pioneertown and Two Morongo Valley Special Water Districts

This is a public hearing on five-year water and sanitation rate increases across many county service areas, three of which serve the Basin. Two of those three are inside Morongo Valley itself — the Little Morongo Heights system (county “Zone F,” in the Little Morongo Road area) and the Hacienda Heights system (county “Zone W-3,” in the Rawson Road area), which sit on opposite sides of the Little Morongo Wash. The third is Pioneertown (”Zone W-4”). The agenda itself lists the zones but gives no dollar figures. The rate study filed with the item does, and the numbers are significant.

Pioneertown serves just 126 metered households. A typical home’s fixed monthly charge rises from about $43 today to roughly $70 by 2030 — a 61% increase — while the per-unit water usage rate climbs from $7.34 to $14.12, a 92% jump over the five years. The county is also collapsing Pioneertown’s old four-tier rate structure into a single flat usage rate, which it says is easier to defend legally.

Little Morongo Heights (Zone F) is the smallest of the three, serving about 83 meters. Its fixed charges rise more modestly on paper, but the system’s finances are the concern: the county’s own consultant projects the water fund sliding roughly $1.3 million into the red by 2030 even with the increases, driven by an estimated $3.5 million in needed infrastructure and debt the projected revenue may not cover.

Hacienda Heights (Zone W-3) is the largest of the three by connection count, serving 164 meters. Its 3/4” fixed charge moves only modestly — from about $48.71 today to roughly $57.83 by 2030 — but its water usage rate jumps from $4.98 to $6.61 per unit in the first year, the steepest first-year usage increase of the Basin systems. It was the only zone in the entire hearing to generate a written objection.

A note on the process: the county reports it received only one written objection across all the zones in this hearing — and that objection came from within the Basin, from a Hacienda Heights (W-3) customer. Under Proposition 218, these increases move forward unless a majority of affected property owners formally protest. With public awareness this low and the comment window this short, that threshold is unlikely to be met. Residents who want to weigh in can do so at the hearing or in writing beforehand.

Source: Item 122 support documents, including the Water and Sanitation Rate Study Report (NBS, March 2026), San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 97 — Morongo Basin Unity Home

Morongo Basin Unity Home, located in Yucca Valley, is the Basin’s domestic-violence intervention and shelter provider, and its county contract doubles under this item — from $352,951 to $705,902 — as part of a countywide package extending seven such providers for another year. Services include a 24-hour crisis hotline, emergency shelter for people who need to leave home quickly for safety, support groups, and referrals to legal and medical help.

The funding is worth understanding: the county says the increase is about 88% federally funded (through CalWORKs welfare funds) and about 12% locally funded through a surcharge on marriage licenses and court-ordered domestic-abuse fines — not from the county’s general fund. Countywide, these providers have served more than 35,000 people since 2007, and the county expects the added funding to reach roughly 2,100 more.

Source: Item 97 support documents, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 134 — The $2.3 Billion Behavioral Health Plan

This item approves the county’s three-year Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan, with projected spending of $2.3 billion across all behavioral-health funding sources and $799 million in dedicated Act spending. It’s the local rollout of Proposition 1, the 2024 statewide measure that reorganized mental-health funding and tied it more closely to housing and homelessness. State rules require the money be split roughly 30% to housing, 35% to intensive “Full Service Partnerships,” and 35% to other behavioral-health services.

For Basin readers, the notable thing is what the plan’s summary does not say. The county’s described outreach centered on its five largest cities — Victorville, Ontario, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana — and the staff report makes no specific mention of the Morongo Basin or rural high-desert communities. The Basin is home to programs funded under this umbrella, including the Joshua Tree Mental Health Court, so how a $2.3 billion plan serves rural residents is a fair question to put to the county. The full plan is posted as an attachment for those who want to read how the dollars are allocated.

Source: Item 134 support documents, including the BHSA 2026-29 Integrated Plan, San Bernardino County Legistar.

Item 104 — Joshua Tree Food-Services Building

This item renews a five-year license letting the nonprofit Family Service Association use a county-owned building with a commercial kitchen at 6171 Sunburst Avenue — the same Joshua Tree Community Center the BOS uses as its Basin meeting site — to run food services for local families. The new revenue to the county totals about $50,868, though roughly $21,000 of that is a retroactive payment covering a four-year stretch the agreement spent in month-to-month “holdover” while the county aligned it with a separate contracting cycle. A modest item, but it confirms an ongoing family food program operating out of the community center.

Source: Item 104 support documents, San Bernardino County Legistar.

This breakdown was produced with AI assistance and limited human review. We provide it as a starting point for your own review of the agenda and its supporting documents, not as a substitute for them. Corrections and feedback are welcome.
Read The Desert Trumpet AI policy.

Legistar is web-based legislative management software.

Hi, new subscribers! Desert Trumpet understands you might not be interested in all of our coverage. That’s why it’s divided into separate newsletters allowing you to opt out of reporting that’s not important to you. For instance, you may want our Education news but not City Hall 29.

Here’s how to opt out: go to your Substack settings, scroll down to “subscriptions,” and select “Edit” for the Desert Trumpet. Simply uncheck the box next to the newsletters you don’t want to receive in your email inbox. You’ll still be able to access all coverage online if you change your mind.

Thanks to you, Desert Trumpet exceeded our $10,000 paid subscription goal!!!

Not a paid subscriber yet? Did you know that paid subscribers receive discounts on our DT Social events and invites to DT Front Porch, intimate discussions featuring local officials and notable residents?

• Upgrade to a $50+ paid subscription for a 10% discount.

• Upgrade to $100+ for a 25% discount.

• Sustaining subscribers at the $250+ level and above receive complementary tickets.
  

  Subscribe now

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Please note that we do not allow anonymous comments. Please be sure your first and last name is on your profile prior to commenting. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Leave a comment

This coverage is free - please share!

Share