Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Water Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Groundwater authority urges more data and joins stakeholder talks on proposed Inyo‑area data center
Summary
After hours of public comment, the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority directed its consultant to stay engaged with state lawmakers and recommended staff prepare technical comments to the CEC, citing uncertainty about a developer’s water estimates and the authority’s 7,650 acre‑feet safe‑yield figure.
The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority on June 11 heard hours of public comment urging greater scrutiny of a proposed hyperscale data center and voted to keep its consultant involved in state legislative talks about data‑center water reporting.
Council Keith Lemieux framed the authority’s role as technical, not land‑use: “The groundwater authority has one purpose and that is to protect and manage the groundwater resource,” he said, noting the agency manages supply through its groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) rather than by approving or denying land‑use permits. Lemieux told the board the GSP currently identifies 7,650 acre‑feet per year as the basin’s sustainable yield.
The meeting opened with several residents and technical speakers who said the developer’s public documents understate likely water use and lack basin‑specific, climate‑adjusted analysis. Public commenter Nina Sunseri said she reviewed the developer’s FAQs and found that the project’s disclosure “espouse[d] 49 acre feet per year and a closed loop hybrid cooling system,” a figure residents and some consultants said appears implausibly low for a 100‑megawatt facility in a desert basin.
Consultant Michael McKenna briefed the board on three bills currently under consideration in Sacramento — AB577, AB2469 and AB2619 — that would affect reporting or permitting for data centers. “There is nothing within Sigma that requires any development to report prospectively,” McKenna said, describing the bills’ different scopes and the opposition from the League of California Cities and county associations to proposals that preempt local planning authority.
Board members and the public discussed technical uncertainty about the 7,650 acre‑feet figure, model differences presented in recent testimony and the ongoing comprehensive adjudication. Speakers urging caution said the adjudication outcome or model clarifications could materially change planning assumptions. Technical presenters countered that the GSP number was developed through TAC review, calibration and sensitivity runs.
After discussion, the board voted to authorize Capital Corps (the authority’s legislative consultant) to remain engaged with stakeholders on data‑center legislation as an interested party and requested staff prepare and return to the board with a technical comment letter to the California Energy Commission outlining basin conditions and specific technical concerns. The board explicitly did not adopt a formal position on the bills at this meeting.
Next steps: staff will draft a CEC comment summarizing the authority’s technical concerns and the board asked Capital Corps to report back on proposed bill amendments and stakeholder negotiations before any formal legislative endorsement. The board also encouraged technical review of the project’s water‑supply assessment and repeated that the authority cannot approve land use; permitting decisions will rest with county or state agencies.
