Groundwater Authority reports budget, pipeline progress as residents raise concerns
Loading...
Summary
At the Oct. 15 Ridgecrest City Council meeting, Councilman Heyman reported that the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority adopted a 2026 budget and continues pipeline planning; public commenters pressed the authority over legal costs, social media posts and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan’s status.
Councilman Hayman reported to the Ridgecrest City Council on Oct. 15 that the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (GA) adopted its 2026 budget and is continuing planning on a proposed pipeline, while members of the public raised questions about the GA’s spending, outreach and the status of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
The GA “review and adopt[ed] the 2026 budget,” Hayman said at the meeting, and he told the council that overall expenditures dropped by about $200,000 compared with the prior year. He said legal fees remain a significant line item: the GA is estimating “approximately 1.7, 1,875,000.000 in legal expenditures,” and board members hope those costs will fall going forward. Hayman also reported that Blue Mountain Management has started work with the GA’s water resources manager and the Army Corps of Engineers on pipeline planning, and that “there was a 2.7 grant that was approved” to support remaining planning work.
The budget report drew public comment. Renee Westelusk, who said she serves on the GA policy advisory committee, told the council the committee recommended a one-way social media approach and that the GA had asked member agencies such as the City of Ridgecrest to host GA posts rather than run an independently moderated GA account. “The only task that the city of Ridgecrest was going to do for the GA was this one-way communication with social media,” Westelusk said, adding that the committee intentionally avoided a two-way social-media presence because of moderation concerns and threats.
A caller identified as Mike Senna offered a string of critical assertions about GA finances and projects, saying residents have paid more than $17 million in GA fees and that the GA’s recycled-water project and other elements of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan have been “scrapped.” Senna also asserted the GA’s audit was overdue and that pipeline design and environmental-review costs have exceeded budget; he said adjudication of basin rights may be inevitable and urged the city to resolve conflicts with the local water district. Those claims were presented by Senna as his view and were not presented as formal findings by GA staff in the meeting.
Council members noted legislative developments. Hayman said the GA was tracking the passage of AB 1466, which he said the governor had signed; another council member said AB 1413 may be revisited in January when committee memberships change.
No formal council action on the GA items was taken at the Oct. 15 meeting; Hayman’s report was informational. The GA’s adoption of its 2026 budget and approval of the planning grant occurred at the GA’s Oct. 8 meeting, as Hayman reported to the council.
Why this matters: The GA’s legal costs, grant awards and the timeline for pipeline planning affect water-supply planning and local costs in the Indian Wells Valley. Public commenters at the council meeting framed those technical developments as reasons for greater transparency and for prompt financial audits.
The council did not vote on any new GA policy at the Oct. 15 meeting. Council members and the public at the meeting urged continued communication and monitoring of GA legal costs, environmental permitting (including pending Bureau of Land Management approvals) and legislative developments.
