Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ridgecrest residents press council to document data‑center concerns and rethink camera contract
Summary
Residents at the June 17 Ridgecrest City Council meeting urged the city to press the California Energy Commission by seeking intervenor status and to publicly review the Flock Safety camera contract, citing long‑term water, seismic and privacy risks.
Several dozen residents told the Ridgecrest City Council on June 17 that the proposed Inukern data center and the town’s contract with private camera vendor Flock Safety raise unresolved safety, environmental and privacy concerns.
Jamie Jones, a local resident who has reviewed the contract obtained via public records, said the agreement’s language worries defense‑community residents. “Section 4.3 grants Flock a perpetual worldwide royalty‑free license to use data from our town to train their software and develop other commercial products,” Jones said. “That license does not end if our relationship with Flock ends.” Jones also cited section 5.3, saying it allows Flock to “access, use, preserve, and disclose footage to law enforcement, government officials, and third parties.”
City Manager Reed told the council staff has drafted a petition seeking intervenor status in the California Energy Commission (CEC) small power plant exemption review and that the application has not yet been deemed complete. “Staff has drafted a petition seeking intervenor status in the CEC small power plant exemption proceeding,” Reed said, and added staff will return the data‑center item to the council agenda on July 15, 2026 for further direction.
Other speakers raised overlapping concerns: Robin Blair warned of air‑quality and generator‑fuel risks from prolonged diesel backup power, citing respiratory and long‑term health worries; Kathy Brown and others highlighted groundwater and water‑use implications, estimating the project could require tens of acre‑feet per year. Residents also pressed the council for a transparent public vote on the Flock contract and for staff to place contract revisions and any future funding for the vendor on the council agenda.
Council members and staff responded that seeking intervenor status is a way to record the city’s concerns without immediately issuing a categorical prohibition; several speakers urged the council to both seek intervenor status and send a separate letter documenting the city’s ‘significant adverse environmental impacts’ as the Navy did. Some residents pushed for an outright city opposition, arguing earlier cases show stronger opposition can be effective; others cautioned that some jurisdictions that simply said “no” were later sued and forced to permit projects.
What happens next: City staff will finalize the draft petition and return the data center item to the July 15, 2026 council agenda for direction. Residents asked the council to also place Flock contract language (sections 4.3 and 5.3) on a future agenda for public debate and potential amendment before further funding appears in the budget.
