Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pipeline Imported Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press GA on pipeline, LA Aqueduct talks and grant footing for imported water
Summary
Workshop debate focused on imported-water options and costs after the GA and consultants said LA DWP and Inyo County have been unwilling or set costly exchange terms; GA said pipeline design is supported by state grant funding but residents raised questions about prior replenishment fees and litigation slowing progress.
Debate over importing water and paying for a pipeline dominated public comment at the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority's workshop, with residents questioning earlier spending and the feasibility of working with the Los Angeles Aqueduct.
Multiple residents asked why the LA Aqueduct option had not been pursued. Steve Johnson and other GA staff recounted multiple discussions with Los Angeles and Inyo County and said political and contractual barriers made the aqueduct impractical. "For every acre foot you want out of this aqueduct, you bring us three acre foot from the state water project," one presenter said of terms reportedly offered by LA DWP during negotiations.
GA staff also described an evaluation of recycled-water spreading and other local alternatives. Consultants said a technical advisory committee reviewed spreading plans and concluded there was insufficient evidence that surface spreading at proposed sites would reliably percolate to the water table in this basin. In short, locally available options and conservation alone were judged insufficient to achieve sustainability without imported supplies.
Residents pressed the Authority on previous expenditures and a replenishment fee that has been collected for several years. One commenter said the community had paid roughly $9 million and asked what had been produced; GA leaders defended the work done to secure a GSP, said their plan had been approved by the Department of Water Resources on first review, and pointed to grant-funded pipeline design work presently underway.
Funding and litigation. Several speakers warned that litigation had slowed implementation and spent resources. GA staff said grant allocations and authorizations exist for the design phase and that the board has sought outside funding so the community would not shoulder the full capital cost; several residents said authorization is not the same as an appropriation and that federal and state funding remains uncertain.
Why it matters: Imported water or other major supply projects are long-term, costly interventions that would alter the basin's water balance. Residents demanded clearer timelines, cost sharing and documentation of grant awards before committing to expensive construction.
What's next: The GA said it is continuing acquisition and design work, pursuing grants, and will bring further updates to future board meetings. Residents encouraged continued public engagement and suggested the GA provide clearer breakdowns of prior consultant spending and the replenishment fee balance.
