Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply Groundwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority update; mediation and pipeline remain contentious
Summary
Councilmember Scott Hammond reported IWVGA approved a 20,000 acre‑foot second transient pool, with 16,000 acre‑feet offered to Mojave Pistachios and 4,000 to small farmers. Public commenters reiterated opposition to the proposed imported-water pipeline and called for greater transparency and mediation between the water district and the authority.
Councilmember Scott Hammond reported to the Ridgecrest City Council on May 14 actions taken by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, including final approval of a second transient pool totaling 20,000 acre‑feet and a legislative update on state and federal developments affecting the basin.
Hammond told the council that 16,000 acre‑feet of the new transient pool will be offered first to Mojave Pistachios and 4,000 acre‑feet assigned to small farmers. He said the authority also discussed state and federal legislation and the need to reestablish relationships with newly seated state and federal staff.
At the council meeting several residents and stakeholders used public comment to press concerns about the Groundwater Authority’s direction and finances. Mike Neal told the council the imported-water pipeline plan and other GA actions were “extremely unpopular” in the valley and compared the governance structure to a joint powers authority that, in his view, had assumed taxing and policing powers without direct accountability. Tom Weknick and others raised questions about transparency and asked where the GA’s legal and consulting expenditures appear; board members and the council answered that budgets and expenditures are posted to the authority’s website (IWVGA.org) and that receipts or invoices are typically attached to GA meeting agendas.
Hammond said a water-district director, Chuck Griffin, suggested mediation between the water district and the Groundwater Authority, and Hammond welcomed the idea. Several councilmembers echoed support for mediation, while noting any proposal would require Board of Directors consideration and, if necessary, the approval of their respective agencies.
Councilmembers and public commenters raised process concerns: whether the water district or the GA should be the lead entity for basin governance, how costs for adjudication and litigation are being borne by ratepayers, and where detailed budget numbers can be obtained. GA materials, Hammond said, are published on the IWVGA website and the general manager presents budget and expenditure details at each GA meeting.
No formal city action or vote was taken on policy toward the Groundwater Authority at this meeting; council discussion focused on receiving the report, asking the GA representative to provide additional budget detail on request, and encouraging discussion and mediation between the GA and the Indian Wells Valley Water District.
