Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Groundwater Authority report, recycled-water costs and AVEK talks dominate council discussion
Summary
Councilmembers and public questioned the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority's five-year update, the absence of a completed water model from the water district, and high projected costs for recycled water; councilors said the authority will accept new data and studies when available.
Council members, staff and members of the public discussed recent Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA) actions, the five-year groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) update and options for additional water supplies at the March 13 meeting.
Councilmember Scott Hayman summarized the IWVGA meeting of March 12: a one-year renewal of a professional services agreement with Regional Government Services; approval of the five-year periodic GSP update that will be forwarded to the Department of Water Resources; receipt and filing of the 2024 water-year annual report; and a Provost & Pritchard change order for a rare-plant survey tied to Southern California Edison transmission work for the imported-water pipeline, adding $20,000 for a spring survey window.
Hayman and others discussed recycled water and other supplemental supplies. At the IWVGA meeting, attendees reviewed a cost estimate for treating and delivering recycled water that, as presented, would be expensive: council discussion referenced a ballpark figure near $10,000 per acre-foot when treatment, injection wells and pipe/infrastructure and operating costs were included. Council members said that figure currently makes recycled water cost-prohibitive compared with other options.
Hayman said the water district has been promising a new groundwater model but has not produced a complete, shareable model. Council members and members of the public said new or revised models and data should be reviewed by the IWVGA technical advisory committee (TAC) and staff and that the GA can accept addenda and new data at any time after the five-year submittal.
Hayman also summarized an extension of a reimbursement agreement with Antelope Valley East Kern (AVEK) for $75,000 to support survey and planning related to an interconnection that could deliver AVEK-supplied water to the imported-water pipeline project; that extension was approved by the GA.
Multiple public speakers urged the GA and council to consider all options, including recycled water and other sources, and warned of high costs to residents if a single option is pursued without comparison. One public commenter said several hydrology studies indicate higher natural recharge than the GA's long-held estimate; another asked the GA to examine multiple options before committing to major projects.
Councilmembers said they want the GA to review any new model or data submitted and suggested using independent third-party review where appropriate. Hayman said the GA will continue pursuing the imported-water pipeline and that AVEK negotiations and the pipeline environmental work remain in process.
No formal council vote on policy changes or contracts related to this item was recorded at the March 13 council meeting; Hayman's update was delivered as a representative report from the IWVGA board.
