Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents protest proposed data center; groundwater board will revisit and may send letter
Summary
Hundreds of public comments focused on a proposed data center in the critically overdrafted Indian Wells Valley basin. The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority referred the matter to staff and voted to place it on the next meeting agenda to consider a formal position or letter to the California Energy Commission (CEC).
Chairman Heyman opened a lengthy public-comment period on a proposed data center in the Indian Wells Valley basin and invited residents to speak about water, air, noise and public-health concerns. Multiple speakers from Ridgecrest and surrounding areas urged the Groundwater Authority to oppose the project or at least ensure full environmental review.
Judy Decker, president of the Eastern Kern County Resource Conservation District, said her board is unanimously opposed because of water consumption, increased ambient temperature and potential surface- and air-quality impacts, and urged the authority to monitor AB 2469, the bill that would limit data-center permits in critically overdrafted basins. “The more I read about data centers, the worse it gets,” Decker said.
Renee Westelusk, a Ridgecrest resident, read language from AB 2469 and asked whether county land-use practice would automatically grant permits; Vice Chair Peters (Jeremy) clarified that such projects typically come before a county board and that the GA must take care publicly because of its quasi-judicial role. Michael McKinney of Capital Corp Group provided the CEC docket number so the public could review environmental filings; staff confirmed the docket as 26-SPPE-01.
Residents raised technical and cumulative-impact concerns: Jennifer Slayton said developer numbers (under optimal conditions) could consume about 1% of valley water by the end of phase two and asked the GA to communicate its concerns to the CEC; Penelope Lapombe warned of ambient-temperature increases and dust-related public-health risks; Don Decker flagged Navy concerns about night lighting and infrared radiation.
Staff and counsel explained the review process: legal and staff presenters said the CEC typically reviews energy-generation components while the county evaluates land use, and both agencies may examine CEQA documents. Phil Hall (staff) warned against "piecemealing" a project and said agencies must analyze the whole project in CEQA documents.
After public comment, Vice Chair Peters moved to refer the data-center matter to staff for additional information and to place it on the authority's next regular meeting agenda for possible action, including drafting a letter of support or opposition to regulators; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. The board did not take a formal position at this meeting.
The matter will return to the authority at its next meeting, when the board may consider a staff report, vote on sending a letter to the CEC or otherwise adopt a position. Staff told residents that the applicant, not the county or GA, pays for environmental studies and that the CEC public-comment window remains open.
