Council hears presentation on AB 1413 and AB 1466 as residents press for transparency on groundwater adjudication

Michael McKinney, the city’s contracted lobbyist, and Kyle Burchard, legal counsel to the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA), briefed the Ridgecrest City Council on the status and substance of Assembly Bills 1413 and 1466 during the council’s June 18 meeting.

The presentation outlined a legislative effort to reduce conflicts between the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and comprehensive groundwater adjudication proceedings. McKinney said the bills would “create a mechanism to remove the conflict between the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the Comprehensive Adjudication Act,” and described how the legislation would require challenges to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to proceed by a validation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 rather than by a de novo review inside an adjudication.

The bills’ backers say the change would provide certainty for public agencies implementing sustainability measures and limit the ability of a court in an adjudication to set a safe yield above a validated sustainable yield. McKinney told the council that AB 1413 and AB 1466 have passed policy and fiscal committees and the Assembly floor and were pending in the Senate at the time of the briefing.

Why it matters: proponents argue the bills reconcile conflicting statutory processes so GSAs can finance and implement sustainability projects without the risk of decades-long adjudications overturning the locally developed GSP. Opponents say the bills could limit litigants’ ability to fully contest water-right claims and could disadvantage small well owners and disadvantaged communities in adjudications.

McKinney summarized three concerns raised by the Department of Water Resources (DWR): the potential for adjudications to alter or delay sustainable-yield decisions, the risk of conflicting management plans, and the long timelines of adjudications that may delay required SGMA implementation through 2040. He said AB 1413 would direct courts to use a validation procedure and would limit a court’s ability to set a safe yield higher than the validated sustainable yield; AB 1466, he said, would clarify standards of review and require the court to consider small farmers and disadvantaged communities when proceeding with an adjudication.

McKinney used the Indian Wells Valley as an example: he said there have been two validation actions filed in the valley, one of which remained pending, and that “there are approximately in the Indian Wells Valley 8,000 members of the community” who could be treated as de minimis users under current law if procedures leave them effectively defaulted out of adjudications. He also described pending technical amendments to AB 1413 that would narrow the bill’s application to basins with state‑approved GSPs validated by a court and would codify periodic review of GSPs.

Council and staff responses: Mayor Endicott and several councilmembers asked clarifying questions about the bills’ origins and effects. McKinney said the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and Fox Canyon were primary proponents but that the legislative language on file had been drafted with input from DWR and legislative counsel; he also disclosed he is paid by both the city and the IWVGA.

Public comment: the council allowed an extended public comment period. Dozens of residents and stakeholders urged greater transparency and a fuller public process before the city expresses support for state legislation. Tom Wignick, a Ridgecrest resident, said the council should “start listening to the people” and hold public deliberations before endorsing positions in Sacramento. Ron Kasinski, who identified himself as a director of the Indian Wells Valley Water District, said he heard “a lecture” from McKinney and disputed some of McKinney’s statements, urging a deeper debate with other experts. Several residents asked who had drafted the bills, and McKinney answered that the authors and state agencies had produced the language after earlier local proposals were rejected by the Legislature. Aaron Crutchfield, editor of the Daily Independent, read the IWVGA legislative update language aloud and asked McKinney to clarify the record; McKinney said the IWVGA is a primary proponent but not the bill author.

Speakers also raised procedural concerns: some speakers said two council members had indicated city support for the bills without a full council vote and asked the council to rescind any letters or to place formal action on a future agenda. Others asked for additional expert presentations representing opposing viewpoints and for greater access to IWVGA meetings held during the workday. A number of commenters asked for the city and the water district to coordinate a single public forum to address conflicting maps and recharge estimates.

Outcome and next steps: the briefing was a presentation only; the council did not take formal action on either bill during the meeting. City staff and council members noted that because the item was listed under “presentations” the Brown Act does not permit an immediate vote. Several speakers and council members asked staff to prepare a future agenda item if the council wishes to consider an official city position or letter on the legislation.

Questions and concerns raised at the meeting focused on (1) whether the bills shift review from local administrative processes to courts, (2) whether the bills adequately protect small and disadvantaged users in adjudications, and (3) whether the city’s engagement and any letters of support were handled with sufficient public notice.