Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed AI data centers prompt Ridgecrest concerns over water use and CEQA review
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Ridgecrest City Council to demand full water-impact, CEQA and cumulative analyses for proposed AI data centers; the Groundwater Authority reported approved mitigation funding and said it will continue study of the proposal.
Public commenters filled council chambers May 20 to press the city for more oversight and environmental review of proposed AI data-center projects in the region, focusing on water consumption, cumulative impacts and the need for a coordinated CEQA review.
Sandra Van Scottter told the council the Unicron project proposed by RNL Capital would be a roughly 238,000-square-foot facility on about 50 acres south of Highway 395 and she cited public-comment figures of about 99 megawatts of power demand and roughly 50 acre-feet of water per year (she described those figures as approximate). "We need to do a full water impact and assessment after the adjudication is done," said Kelly Cutts, a caller, urging that phase 2 of the project be included in any CEQA review so impacts are not considered piecemeal.
Lauren Smith, a longtime resident, and others warned against accepting only best-case developer scenarios, saying the valley’s limited water and unique environment mean the city and county should demand clear, cumulative impact analysis before permitting decisions are made.
Jennifer Slayton and other callers pushed for financial transparency and local oversight, raising concerns about legal exposure and asking the council to consider ad hoc committees or more detailed technical review before supporting project permits or pipeline financing.
Councilman Hayman (reporting on the Valley Groundwater Authority) summarized recent GA actions: at its May 13 meeting the GA approved allocation of shallow-well mitigation program funds for the Rademacher consolidation project (extending district service and meters to affected homes) and approved a required report and submission to the court under California Code of Civil Procedure §845 related to ongoing adjudication. He said the GA voted to bring the AI data-center topic back for further discussion and study.
Public speakers debated pipeline feasibility and cost estimates during the meeting: numbers cited ranged from roughly $200 million (agency estimate) to $400 million in public statements; speakers also disagreed about basin storage estimates and whether importing water is necessary. Several commenters urged coordination with groundwater authorities, tribes, the school district and state reviewers and asked the city to press developers for explicit cooling-system, water-source and cumulative-impact details.
What happens next: The mayor announced the data-center item will be on the June 3 agenda for fuller council discussion. Several public speakers asked the city to submit detailed comments to the California Energy Commission and to insist on CEQA-complete project-level cumulative analysis.
