The meeting was held at a Riverside County building, in a room that can host some 300 people. It was full. An overflow room had space for over 100 more. It was full. A cafe in the building had a few more seats. Those filled up, too. Some people stood along the edges.

The reason, as it so often has been in the Inland Empire in recent years, was warehouses — specifically a proposal to build an industrial and warehouse complex on the edge of the old March Air Force Base.

But the result on this night was different, breaking with decades of political and economic inertia and cementing a genuine sea change that formally emerged last year. After Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September reining in warehouse development statewide, San Bernardino County Superior Court overturned an approval for a gigantic project in Bloomington a few weeks later.

Then came Monday’s hearing. A developer, Meridian Park West, had proposed a 3 million-square-foot warehouse space as part of what planners called the West Campus Upper Plateau project, an 818-acre swath of land west of the decommissioned base and surrounded mostly by homes, a church and ballfields. 

The prospect of warehouses on that land infuriated the neighbors, who already navigate the trucks and traffic that come with the Inland Empire’s self-created place in international commerce, a waystation between the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports and the American interior. The warehouse boom in recent decades has brought jobs but also disruption to Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and this project crystallized what has become a difficult choice for many communities: The jobs are tempting, but the price is safety and public health.

In community after community, that debate resolved in favor of jobs. In 1980, there were 234 warehouses spread across this region. Now there are more than 4,000. They cover nearly 40 square miles of land. 

That rampage was virtually uncontested in the early years. But concentration has multiplied the environmental and community impact of these projects. It also focused public attention. Proposals that once sailed through now are encountering more determined opposition. That was starkly on display this week as the March Joint Powers Commission met to discuss, one more time, the ever-evolving proposed project.

The developer this time came with some concessions and window dressing. Recast as the March Innovation Hub, the warehouse pitch was accompanied by a promise to create a center of research and “innovation,” backed by a $4 million endowment. The project footprint had been reduced, highlighted by the new center, which, in theory, would act as a place to explore advances in biotechnology, aviation and transportation, according to the authority’s staff. 

The authority’s staff also recommended the commissioners, made up of various Riverside County politicians, approve the modified project. Their constituents were having none of it. 

Authority officials and the developer made their pitches, leaning heavily on the prospect of new construction jobs and an estimated 3,100 permanent jobs once the complex was built and operating. Hundreds of residents who had assembled for the evening stirred uneasily during those presentations, occasionally interrupting with jeers

When a public opinion researcher hired by the developer reported that the community was evenly divided about the project, “What a lie!” one resident called out. 

Speaker after speaker rose to address the commission. Those in support came almost exclusively from organized labor, in particular building and trade unions. Carpenters, pipe fitters and others spoke up for the jobs that would be created in the construction of the complex.

Unanimous vote

The evening was dominated, however, by opponents. One after another, they ticked off their reasons for wanting the project stopped:

It would bring thousands of truck trips through residential communities. These residents were not buying the staff’s assertion that trucks would be restricted to certain roads — these communities already are overrun by truck traffic, so they’re not easily fooled by assurances.

It would provide jobs, yes, but most of them seemed ill-suited to this area. Warehouse employment is often minimum wage or just above it, and rents in Riverside and surrounding communities are high. One speaker noted that a full-time employee of one of these new warehouses might take home $2,800 a month — income, to be sure, but hard to stretch in an area where rents average $2,000 a month. Workers, then, would have to live in cheaper areas and commute, meaning more traffic.

It would contribute to the region’s stultifying air pollution and health problems that flow from it. Parents told of their asthmatic children struggling to breathe; residents spoke of loved ones moving away in search of healthier places. One doctor responded to the claim that “there’s no such thing as a bad job” by retorting: “There’s no such thing as a good cancer.”

It would demolish the character of the communities around it. These are neighborhoods of private homes. A large church that runs a school and sports programs sits to the south of the project area. What about those residents and parishioners and their priorities, the speakers asked?

It would, to opponents, represent a triumph of money and influence over popular will. “You are our elected officials,” one speaker noted. “Your responsibility is to represent us, not a wealthy developer who does not even live in the county.” Cheers erupted. And others made the same point, to the same applause. “We deserve,” one speaker pointedly noted, “to be protected by the leaders we elected.”

As the night ground on, the developer’s representatives seemed to feel the momentum swinging against them. When it came time to vote, some commissioners entertained the prospect of a compromise: They would approve the project but insert language that specifically prohibited the developer from using any of the land zoned as “industrial” for logistics, the planning word for warehouses.

Desperate for a win, the developer agreed to that condition. That alone offered powerful evidence of how far this debate has shifted. In order to salvage a commercial, industrial project here in the land of warehouses, the developer was willing to jettison the warehouses themselves.

And yet, even that was not enough. Opponents, sensing the possibility of a broader victory, objected. They pressed for a straight up vote on the overall project.

There were a few last gasps. Riverside City Councilmember Chuck Conder sputtered a bit in frustration, defending the region’s air quality and arguing that the project would make traffic “better, not worse.” He stared down disbelieving members of the audience and demanded that residents who opposed this project come back with ideas of their own. 

“Something’s going to be built,” he noted. “Tell us what you want.”

But that felt like the death rattle of an old idea, and the matter plowed ahead to a vote. The commission’s clerk called the roll, and the project died. The vote was unanimous.

Jennifer Larratt-Smith has been one of the leaders of the campaign to kill the warehouses, which she has been fighting for years, often just grateful for a delay. She was among the speakers Monday night, and as she left the meeting room, she beamed, absorbing the congratulations of her neighbors and others. 

She noted that public sentiment against warehouses is shifting. And she noted, with relief, that democracy, as exemplified by the hundreds who petitioned their leaders for help, sometimes prevails.

“Every once in a while,” she said, exhausted and elated. “Every once in a great while.”

The post Rejection of Inland Empire warehouse project signals a retreat from California’s decadeslong boom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“The winter run was the main sustenance source for the Winnemem Wintu throughout history,” said tribal member Gary Mulcahy. “We consider them the grandfather of all salmon.”     

For several years, Winnemem Wintu leaders have collaborated with state and federal officials to reintroduce the critically endangered fish to this wilderness waterway in a historic effort to revitalize the McCloud and reconnect with their past.

But a federal proposal to increase the height of Shasta Dam by more than 18 feet to provide more water to farmers now threatens the tribe’s land and could harm salmon runs.

Contemplated for decades and gaining traction among Republican lawmakers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s proposed Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project would boost the capacity of California’s largest reservoir.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the federal government has not mounted any public effort to raise the dam. But Trump has taken several steps in that direction, including signing executive orders instructing federal officials to waive environmental rules and deliver more water to California growers.

Last week, the dam project appeared to get a push in the House Natural Resources Committee’s budget reconciliation bill, with a designation of $2 billion “for construction and associated activities that increase the capacity of existing Bureau of Reclamation surface water storage facilities.” Though the budget language does not name Shasta Dam, experts say it’s precisely crafted to facilitate the project. 

“There’s no mystery here,” said Barry Nelson, policy advisor with the Golden State Salmon Association. “That language is designed to push the Shasta raise.” 

Raising the dam was the “number-one priority” water project for the first Trump administration, Nelson said.

However, U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican whose district includes Shasta and who helped draft the budget language, told CalMatters that while he endorses enlarging Shasta Dam, the reconciliation bill’s “funding is not for any specific project.” 

Last year, a bill that would have allocated funds for enlarging the dam while prohibiting state laws from obstructing the project died in the House. It was sponsored by 12 California Republicans, including LaMalfa.

The Bureau of Reclamation estimated in 2014 that enlarging Shasta Dam would cost $1.4 billion — roughly $1.8 billion in today’s dollars. Obtaining the array of state and federal permits for the dam could take years, and is likely to face court challenges.

The project would provide an additional 51,300 acre-feet of water per year to recipients — mainly farmers — of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, according to a federal estimate. That would increase the amount they receive on average by less than 1% , which Ron Stork, a policy expert with the group Friends of the River, referred to as “decimal dust.” 

The dam project would claim some of the Winnemem Wintu’s last remaining territory and could violate the state’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which explicitly prohibits constructing reservoirs on the McCloud’s final miles before entering Lake Shasta. 

State officials have publicly opposed the project in the past. In 2013, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said raising the dam would have “significant and unavoidable impacts” on the Sacramento River ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has similarly warned federal officials that the project would restrict high-water flows and reduce fish habitat.

State officials declined to comment for this story.  Bureau of Reclamation spokesperson Peter Soeth also declined to comment. 

Stork, a longtime opponent of the dam raise, said the Trump administration is liable to ignore the state law. Trump’s January executive order directed federal officials to deliver more water through the Central Valley Project “by increasing storage and conveyance … notwithstanding any contrary State or local laws.”

“We certainly expect some serious mischief here,” Stork said. “The president’s executive order more or less says, ‘Please find ways to accomplish my agenda by trying to get around state and federal law.’” 

Mulcahy, the Winnemem Wintu’s government liaison, said Lake Shasta flooded 90% of his tribe’s historical territory. “Village sites, sacred sites, cultural gathering sites,” he said. 

Increasing the dam’s height will do even more damage, he said, periodically inundating many important gathering places, including the Kabyai Creek burial ground, where dozens of tribal members were laid to rest after a vicious 1854 massacre by white settlers.

It would also flood a cleansing pool for Winnemem men, a riverside dancing mesa and a young women’s coming-of-age ceremony site called Puberty Rock. This, Mulcahy said, will fray some of the last remaining cultural threads holding together the tribe, which he said consists of about 140 members. 

“We wouldn’t be able to hold the ceremonies that are necessary to fulfill our spiritual and cultural needs,” he said. 

The Winnemem Wintu are not included on the official list of federally recognized tribes, which could limit their influence over the project.  

Polarizing farmers and environmentalists

Like many Delta and Central Valley water supply projects, the Shasta Dam raise has polarized farmers and environmentalists in a dispute over how it would affect Chinook salmon.

Environmentalists and fishery advocates say it will imperil already declining salmon populations, while project proponents, including the Westlands Water District, say it will help the ecosystem.

Westlands provides water, imported mostly from the Delta, to San Joaquin Valley farmers who grow 150,000 acres of pistachios and almonds — their main crops — as well as other fruits, grains and vegetables. 

But General Manager Allison Febbo said the Shasta project isn’t directly about water supply. Rather, she said, it’s meant to help fish. Febbo explained that increasing the reservoir’s volume will keep its water colder, which is essential for spawning.

If the plight of the fish improves, Febbo said, regulations on water diversions might be eased — which would amount to an indirect benefit to water users like Westlands.

“We keep getting ratcheted down as the species continues to decline, so our water supply isn’t going to get any better until the species gets better,” Febbo said. 

LaMalfa also stressed that the project would be “a win-win” by increasing water storage and better insulating the reservoir’s cold-water pool.

“More water for people and more cold water for salmon,” the congressman said. 

But Nelson, at the Golden State Salmon Association, said Shasta Dam has already “been absolutely catastrophic for salmon.”

“The idea that a Shasta raise would benefit salmon — particularly under this set of federal agencies — is absurd,” he said.

Completed in 1945, the dam blocked Chinook from reaching hundreds of miles of stream habitat. For the winter-run Chinook — whose unique life cycle involves residing and spawning in freshwater through summer — the ice-cold McCloud was their stronghold. 

“It can be 110 degrees in the canyon there, and you can be standing in the river in waders and your legs are so cold it hurts,” said Rene Henery, California science director with the group Trout Unlimited, as he explained the importance of the McCloud to the future survival of winter-run Chinook. 

Today, the fish — which enter freshwater in the winter — cling to existence in a short stretch of river downstream of Lake Shasta, surviving thanks to the release of cold water stored deep in the reservoir. However, this resource frequently runs out in the summer as the fish lay and fertilize their eggs, which can lead to complete spawning failures in lethally warm water.

While a more voluminous reservoir could theoretically keep its water colder for longer, Henery said the changing climate is likely to complicate this equation. Filling the enlarged reservoir in a hotter, drier future is the main problem. 

“Dams don’t make water, so in a low-water year, raising the dam does nothing,” he said. 

In wet years, he added, the enlarged dam will harm fish by capturing water that would otherwise flood vital wetland habitat downstream, like the recently restored Yolo Bypass, west of Sacramento. “The inundation we get on the Yolo Bypass is what’s keeping salmon populations hanging on in the Sacramento,” Henery said. 

Jon Rosenfield, science director at the advocacy group San Francisco Baykeeper, added that “expanding the dam will capture more of the high flows (during wet years) that are now the only lifeline those fish have.”

Mulcahy said he is hopeful that the project — though currently revving with Republican horsepower — will soon run out of steam. Labor and material costs are rising, he said, and the longer the project goes unbuilt, the more expensive it gets. 

“They’re going to try and negate state law so that they can proceed however they want,” Mulcahy said. “But if we can last this one out, I think it may bury itself once and for all.”

The post Why a contentious project to raise California’s Shasta Dam could move forward under Trump appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Vidaurre’s tireless advocacy for clean air, sustainable environmental policies, and the fight against environmental injustices in marginalized communities has garnered national attention. Her commitment to reducing trucking and rail emissions, particularly in California’s Inland Empire, has been a driving force in shaping progressive environmental policies despite challenges under the new U.S. Administration.

Reflecting on this recognition, Vidaurre shared, “What an honor to represent the work we do in the fight for clean air and environmental justice—especially here in the Inland Empire. We are striving to transition the logistics industry to zero emissions and ensure that communities are not sacrificed for the sake of next-day delivery.”

PC4EJ stands in solidarity with Vidaurre’s call to action, urging California’s leaders to remain steadfast in their commitment to environmental progress. The organization calls on the South Coast Air Quality Management District to clean up the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the California Air Resources Board to uphold key regulations, and state legislators to support critical bills like AB 914. Additionally, PC4EJ urges local officials in the Inland Empire to halt unchecked warehouse development.

TIME’s annual TIME100 list celebrates individuals who have made a significant impact across the globe through their leadership, advocacy, and contributions. The full list and accompanying tributes will be featured in the April 28, 2025 issue of TIME magazine, available on newsstands Friday, April 18, and online at time.com/time100.

The post TIME Names Inland Empire’s Andrea Vidaurre One of 2025’s Most Influential People for Environmental Justice Work appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This regulation targets warehouses over 100,000 square feet in Southern California, particularly in the Inland Empire, where cities such as Ontario and Fontana have each recorded more than 40 violations. Other affected areas include Jurupa Valley, Chino and Rialto.

Now, the regulatory focus is expanding statewide with the introduction of Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98). Effective January 1, 2026, Assembly Bill 98 sets new design and build standards and mandates updated truck routing plans to reduce the adverse air quality impacts of truck traffic near warehouses. The law requires new or expanded warehouses—defined as facilities increasing at least 20 percent of their existing square footage—to meet rigorous energy efficiency, noise mitigation, and traffic routing standards. Notably, warehouses that sell food or household goods directly to consumers or those primarily served by rail are exempt.

Under AB 98, new warehouses must adhere to specific requirements, including compliance with California’s building energy efficiency standards and development limited to roadways suitable for heavy commercial traffic (with waivers available under certain conditions). The new law also requires the implementation of light and noise mitigation measures, and design features such as relocating truck entry gates and posting anti-idling and directional signage at loading docks.

Cities and counties also face new deadlines. Municipalities within the “warehouse concentration region” (including Riverside and San Bernardino counties and cities like Chino, Fontana, and Ontario) must update their circulation elements to include designated truck routes by Jan. 1, 2026, while other areas have until Jan. 1, 2028. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to $50,000 every six months from the attorney general.

Since the warehouse Indirect Source Rule was enacted in 2021, AQMD has taken a firm stance. Violators may face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, with higher fines for negligent or intentional breaches. Although many operators have moved into compliance, the agency remains vigilant, stating that initial efforts will focus on settlements—potentially involving environmental projects or financial penalties—before resorting to court action.

AQMD has also introduced mobile air monitoring systems in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, set to operate from 2026 to 2032, to assess the impact of warehouse emissions on nearby communities. 

Critics argue that the current approach, which allows operators to pay fines rather than invest in cleaner technologies, falls short of protecting vulnerable communities. Ana Gonzalez, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said that stricter enforcement—such as mandating operational shutdowns after repeated noncompliance—is necessary.

Meanwhile, Paul Granillo of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership acknowledges the progress in compliance but warns that limited availability of clean trucks and equipment could strain local businesses and the regional economy.

These combined efforts by AQMD and the state signal a robust commitment to reducing the environmental impact of warehouse operations—a priority that is set to reshape warehouse development and operational practices across California in the coming years.

The post California Tightens Warehouse Regulations with New Design and Build Standards appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Two weeks ago a San Bernardino Superior Court overturned the county’s approval of a massive warehouse complex on more than 2 million acres in the community of Bloomington.

Then on Sunday Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reins in warehouse development statewide by tightening building standards and restricting diesel truck routes in neighborhoods. 

The new law is likely to have a big impact in the Inland Empire, which already includes 4,000 warehouses that sprawl over nearly 40 square miles. Those facilities bring jobs, but also air pollution, noise and traffic.

Environmental activists applauded the court case reversing the Bloomington warehouse approval.

Developers of the Bloomington warehouse complex proposed building three new distribution centers, including a cavernous facility of more than a million square feet. Their plan involved buying and demolishing more than 100 homes.

A coalition of nonprofits sued San Bernardino County and the developer in 2022, saying officials missed the mark on environmental standards. On Sept. 17 Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez agreed. He overturned the project approval and its environmental impact report, ruling that it failed to offer reasonable alternatives or properly analyze impacts on air quality, noise, energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are very happy that the judge has looked at all the evidence and agreed” the environmental review was inadequate, said Alondra Mateo, a community organizer with the San Bernardino-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, which sued to stop the project.

The demolition of homes that carved away a swath of the community goes beyond typical development concerns, Mateo said: “It’s not just an environmental impact; it’s a cultural impact, it’s a mental health impact.” 

Then on Sunday Newsom approved the warehouse law authored by Inland Empire Democratic Assemblymembers Eloise Gómez Reyes and Juan Carillo. The law passed in the final hours of the legislative session in August, provoking criticism from all sides. While advocates for the logistics industry panned the law as a job-killer, community groups say its public health protections aren’t strict enough.

Paul Granillo, president and CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, described the law as bad policy “created in a smoke-filled room without experts.” He predicted it will hurt jobs in 

the Inland Empire and other parts of Southern California.

Environmental groups weren’t any happier. The law requires warehouse loading docks be set back 300 to 500 feet from to sensitive sites, including homes, schools and playgrounds. That’s not enough of a buffer to protect nearby residents, Mateo said, arguing that the ideal distance should be about one kilometer, which is more than 3,280 feet.

Reyes has said the law offers a starting point that local governments can expand on to protect public health. Mateo maintained it gives developers an out, enabling them to comply with the letter of the law by meeting minimum limits.

Lawmakers acknowledged the law will require amendments. The critics are ready to go. Industry groups say they’ll press for more flexible rules, while environmental groups want stricter ones.

“If anything we’re going to push even harder,” Mateo said.

The post Newsom and state court judge throw wet blanket on Inland Empire warehouse boom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, is asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to grant a waiver that would allow the In-Use Locomotive Regulation to take effect.

In a letter co-signed by 74 congressmembers, Obernolte told EPA Administrator Michael Regan that the rule, adopted in April 2023 by the California Air Resources Board and set to start taking effect in 2030, is unnecessary and impossible to follow because the required technology doesn’t exist.

Trains account for just 0.5% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — which are responsible for climate change — and despite the industry taking steps to cut those emissions, the rule “has the potential to undermine the progress made by the railroads,” Obernolte’s letter read.

“Forcing the adoption of unproven technology could inadvertently move freight from the rail sector to (the) heavy-duty trucking sector,” which emits far more pollution, the letter added.

Obernolte, whose district includes cities in San Bernardino County’s High Desert as well as parts of Colton, Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands and San Bernardino, fears the rule will cause Burlington Northern Santa Fe to pull the plug on its $1.5 billion Barstow International Gateway project, killing 20,000 jobs, because the project would need all-electric locomotives that don’t exist.

Rail projects such as the Barstow gateway “would be canceled completely as development would become cost-prohibitive” if the rule were enacted, Burlington Northern spokesperson Lena Kent said via email.

Also, “thousands of existing and promised well-paying jobs would vanish” and “the cost of goods movement through California would increase to the point of being non-competitive, shifting cargo to other ports outside the state,” Kent said.

“Our national supply chain and West Coast port throughput would suffer without new rail projects that improve efficiency.”

The air resources board declined to comment on Obernolte’s letter. But according to information given by board spokesperson Lys Mendez, emissions from just one train exceed those from 400 heavy-duty trucks.

“The reduced nitrogen oxide and diesel particulate matter — of which there is no known safe level of exposure — will bring an estimated $32 billion in health savings by preventing 3,200 premature deaths and 1,500 emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” the statement provided by Mendez said.

“Cancer risk from exposure to air toxins within one mile of locomotive operations is expected to be reduced by 90%. Many rail operations, particularly in urban areas, tend to be located in places that are home to low-income residents and communities of color, who often bear a disproportionate burden from the impacts of air pollution,” the statement added.

Toxic exhaust from trucks and trains serving the logistics industry is a sensitive topic in the Inland Empire, where mega-warehouses stretching into the horizon support tens of thousands of jobs.

Environmental justice activists want the government to strictly limit or eradicate diesel emissions linked to cancer, asthma, heart attacks and other health problems. But logistics industry advocates warn the rules sought at the state and federal levels have unrealistic timelines and the industry is already taking steps to curb emissions.

Under the rule, by 2035, all locomotives operating in California will have to run in “zero-emission configuration” or in a way that doesn’t emit pollution.

“Presently, there are no commercially available freight locomotives that could comply with the (zero-emission) requirements of the regulation,” Obernolte’s letter states.

The rule also forces freight train companies to deposit money into a spending account that can only be used for zero-emission technology, with the amount deposited based on their trains’ emissions.

Burlington Northern and Union Pacific — the two Class I freight train companies operating in California — could each be forced to deposit up to $800 million a year, Obernolte’s letter read.

If the EPA adopts the rule, it could lead to a byzantine level of state-by-state locomotive regulations, disrupting a freight train industry that’s best regulated by the federal government, Obernolte said.

Responding to Obernolte’s questions at a Wednesday, May 15, House committee hearing, Regan said his agency is “going through a very thorough evaluation right now (of the rule) and we’ve got a lot of things to consider.”

“I have pledged, and so have my team members, to follow the science and follow the law. We have to be sure that any action that we take does both of those things, especially follow the law,” Regan said.

He did not provide a timeframe for when the EPA will decide whether to grant the rule a waiver.

The post Clean air rule could derail California’s freight train industry, lawmaker warns appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.