Council highlights Searles Valley Minerals settlement with Groundwater Authority; debate over pipeline and adjudication continues

At the council meeting, a member read a press statement announcing a settlement between the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA) and Searles Valley Minerals. The release said the parties have "permanently dropped and dismissed with prejudice" separate lawsuits between them, that Searles agreed not to challenge technical findings supporting the valley’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan and that Searles will work with the GA to implement parts of the plan, including accepting reclaimed nonpotable water as part of a long‑term supply strategy.

The statement said the settlement secures Searles’ support for water‑management efforts and described an arrangement under which the city would provide approximately 2,000 acre‑feet per year of reclaimed nonpotable water for industrial use, reducing Searles’ native groundwater pumping. The release also noted that San Bernardino County has pledged several million dollars to support a drinking water system for Trona.

Council members welcomed the settlement as a step toward cooperation and emphasized fiscal benefits: one council member said dropping litigation could save the authority and ratepayers "hundreds of thousands" of dollars in legal costs. Council members also noted the water district remains a party to the overarching adjudication; the settlement does not resolve adjudicated rights, and the statement said Searles will remain involved in any adjudication determining permanent rights.

Multiple public callers and residents disagreed with key GA assumptions, arguing that the GA’s recharge and storage estimates are incorrect and warning that the proposed imported‑water pipeline could be costly (some callers invoked figures they described as in the hundreds of millions). Callers said they expect continued litigation and asked the council to ensure the settlement document and full terms are published online; one caller said he would not believe the settlement terms until the document appears on the IWVGA website.

Council members said the item had been discussed at the GA and that members who attended the GA meeting had taken note of technical complexity; several urged residents to review GA meeting recordings and materials. The council did not take a formal action on the settlement itself during the meeting; the item was an informational report and press release for the council to acknowledge.