FREE
Police: Nearly 100 citations issued for illegal fireworks in Riverside
Former Indian Wells Mayor Richard Oliphant dies at 92
PG 02
PG 27
VISIT HEYSOCAL.COM
MONDAY, JULY 20-JULY 26, 2026
VOL. 12,
A new review of the SAT at University of California is coming by June 2027
Analysis shows proposed stormwater mandates will cost San Bernardino County, cities $11 billion By Staff
By Mikhail Zinshteyn, CalMatters
A
n updated analysis by an economic research firm has revealed that proposed stormwater requirements will impose roughly $11 billion in costs on San Bernardino County and 16 of its cities over the next 20 years, which officials said will unleash a financial crisis that could bankrupt cities, increase housing prices, gut public safety budgets and disproportionately harm the region’s most vulnerable residents. The county hired Beacon Economics, a nationally recognized economic research and consulting firm for an “independent, data-driven analysis” of the proposed Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit, or MS4, county officials said. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board oversees the permit, which regulates stormwater runoff from urban areas. According to the county, the proposed permit revisions would require sweeping new compliance measures that local officials claim “are both financially unworkable and environmentally unproven.” These concerns led to an outcry from Southern California counties and cities in 2024 when the permit was first discussed. “After 15 months of silence and no effort at collaboration,” the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors 2026 update to the proposed MS4 permit was released about two months ago. Beacon Economics’ analysis found the newest version of the proposed permit failed to reduce its huge costs in any substantial way, according to the county. A revised “Tentative Order” does include some minor improvements in implementation flexibility,
NO. 285
This story was originally published by CalMatters.
T
The Santa Ana River. | Photo courtesy of San Bernardino County
but the main cost drivers were unchanged as the proposed permit “seeks to apply an unproven standard that would force cities and counties to spend billions to divert and treat stormwater, which will drain rivers and streams that species depend upon and residents use for recreation,” county officials said. The 16 affected cities are Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Upland and Yucaipa. The proposed MS4 also presents an environmental paradox — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has voiced concerns that diverting stormwater flows to meet the proposed permit
requirements will harm habitats for the Santa Ana Sucker Fish, which is officially listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. “This raises the prospect that the new rules will cause the very environmental harm they purport to prevent,” according to the county. Officials also noted “warning signs” such as comparable stormwater mandate in Los Angeles that has failed to deliver required results despite a $300 million new tax to fund compliance, leaving agencies facing enforcement actions. “Arbitrary standards not yet proven by science, or technology or real-world applications will produce the same outcome, leaving See Stormwater Page 27
its cities unable to fund the basic services their residents depend on,” according to the county. “We respect the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s mission and share the goal of clean water for our communities, but the cost impacts in this proposal are substantial, and we’ve seen in other regions that large investments in stormwater compliance haven’t translated into measurable water quality gains,” Board of Supervisors Chairman and 3rd District Supervisor Dawn Rowe said in a statement. Amid a statewide housing shortage and affordability issues, the Beacon analysis shows that the price of a new single-family home
he University of California will still evaluate the role of the SAT in undergraduate admissions, despite media reports indicating that the revered public university system suspended those deliberations. The confusion comes at a time when a growing chorus of professors and media commentators are pushing the UC to reinstate the SAT for undergraduate admissions, which the UC Board of Regents removed from the admissions process in 2020. That board decision overruled the UC Academic Senate’s recommendation that the UC keep its thenpolicy of relying on the SAT and the ACT. The regents’ vote was unanimous. The latest whiplash began last month, when the academic senate said it would launch a review of standardized tests in admissions and the high school classes that students must take to be minimally eligible for UC admissions. Last Monday afternoon, several news stories reported that an academic senate committee that oversees admissions decided to scrap that review. However, two key officials at the UC said a new evaluation of the role of standardized testing in admissions is still on the table. One of those officials is the chair of the academic senate, Ahmet Palazoglu. “The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions,” he wrote in a statement last Monday night on the UC See SATs Page 05
Office of the President website. He said the senate is merely revising its original timeline for a full review of the admissions process. At a Tuesday meeting of the UC Board of Regents, the new board chair, Maria Anguiano, said the academic senate will finish its review by “no later than the end of this academic year,” which means around June 2027. That speeds up the original timeline. An academic senate document issued last month said its final report and recommendation to the regents would come sometime in fall 2027. Palazoglu clarified in an email Tuesday that the June timeline pertains only to the question of standardized tests in admissions. The academic senate will meet July 22 to decide on a separate approach to reviewing the high school courses students must take for UC eligibility. While the academic senate has considerable power at the UC, it cannot unilaterally return the SAT to undergraduate admissions. Only the board of regents can. Procedurally, the board must first hear least one informational item that’s on the agenda and then vote on any proposed policy at a subsequent meeting. Students again oppose SAT use The UC Student Association sent a letter to the regents this week opposing a return to the SAT. The association, which represents 237,000 undergraduate students at the UC, “does not believe SAT/ACT