IWVGA CLASS ACTION (SGMA) For Attorneys, Potential Class Members and Interested Parties: Information, News and Resources

Sections and References (top)

Event Timeline 2013 to present

  1. City of Ridgecrest Timeline
  2. Wastewater Treatment Facility, IWVGA Option Agreement to buy treated wastewater from City for $375,000 Five Year term
  3. Indian Wells Valley Water District Timeline: “IWVGA Fee” collection, CITY blames IWVWD for failure to maintain groundwater basin, IWVWD “Egregious” Accusations from City-Attorney. City suggests IWVWD borrow $25 million. $3.2 million collected.
  4. IWV Groundwater Authority Timeline: Meeting Minutes, Videos, Documents & Notes

  1. Arguments: The U.S. Navy and State of California are wrong to open this can of worms, and it will all be proven in Federal court
  2. Open Letter to California Department of Water, Congressman Kevin McCarthy, State Senator Shannon Groves, State Representative Vince Fong, Kern County, San Bernardino County, Inyo County, Navy Southwest Region, House Committee on Natural Resources
  3. Adverse impacts on economic development, recruitment and retention, quality of life
  4. References: Statutes, Regulations and Case Law

Information on Documents and Links

  • Bold Links Jump to Sections or Posts on Roadrunner395.com.
  • Regular links jump to other websites and display in a new tab.
  • #Jump links can be appended to the URL of this page and bookmarked on your browser, e.g. thispageURL/#2020
  • PDF Documents can be viewed on this page or downloaded and are pre-pended YYYYMMDD
  • This very long page is constantly under development so please excuse the “construction phase” bugs.
  • Go to Index

Event Timeline

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Note: Each section below is in chronological order and includes links, documents, statements or reference information. For a complete introduction, scroll through the entire page to get a feel for the context of the events when they happened. The Information below is deemed by the Plaintiff to be accurate but not guaranteed.

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Document Index

IWV Groundwater Allocation Spreadsheet

“IWVGA Class Action (SGMA)”

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Are you a potential member of this Class Action Lawsuit v. Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority?

You may be a member of this Class Action Lawsuit if you are

  1. Any Property Owner (“Owner”) in a shared groundwater basin managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) formed under authority of the Sustainable Groundwater Managment Act of 2016 (SGMA), effective January 1, 2019 in the State of California.
  1. Any Commercial Business (“Business”) in any Basin in which the U.S. Military (“Military”) has a reservation on Bureau of Land Managment Public Lands Status Temporarily Withdrawn.
  1. A Water District in the State of California (“Water District”) operating in a Basin shared with the U.S. Military and managed by a GSA under SGMA.
  1. A Renter (“Renter”) living in a groundwater basin subject to a “Groundwater Agency” created under authority of SGMA if you pay the IWVGA’s Replenishment Fee. The Fee is now collected by the Indian Wells Valley Water District as “IWVGA Fees” on your monthly water bill.
  1. To be identified.
  2. Class type: To be identified. See Class action type 23(b)(3).

Go to Index

The Lead Plaintiff “Plaintiff” in the Class Action is Mike Sinnott, Trustee of the Pauline B. Sinnott Revocable Family Trust. See To Whom It May Concern for more information.

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Interested Parties

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Congressman Kevin McCarthy (CA-23)

State Senator Shannon Grove (CA-16)

State Assemblyman Vince Fong (CA-34)

Kern County Supervisor Phillip Peters (District 1) district1@kerncounty.com

Elected Representatives

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA)

  • Kern County, Zack Scrivner
  • San Bernardino County, Tim Intyre
  • Inyo County, John Vallejo
  • City of Ridgecrest, Chairman Scott Hayman, shayman@ridgecrest-ca.gov
  • Indian Wells Valley Water District, Stan Rajtora, iwvwd@iwvwd.com
  • Carol Thomas-Keefer, IWVGA General Manager
  • Keith Lemieux, Legal Counsel
  • Steve Johnson, Stetson Engineers
  • Commander Peter Benson, US Navy/DOD Liason
  • April Keigwin, Clerk of the Board

Go to Index

Friends pro bono:

COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE

County and City

  • Inyo County
    • Coso Geothermal
  • San Bernardino County
    • Trona-Searles Valley Minerals

State of California

Navy Region Southwest (NRS)

Federal Government

  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Karen Mouritsen, State Director
  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Carl Symons, Ridgecrest area manager csymons@blm.gov

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

To Whom it May Concern,

I am a resident and property owner in Kern County, California. I also live within the Indian Wells Valley Water District (IWVWD) and the groundwater basin now managed by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (IWVGA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

I am preparing to file a Class Action lawsuit against the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, et al. I have the time and resources along with the intention to file a Federal court case challenging Navy’s assertion of “federal reserve water rights”, the IWVGA’s acceptance of the Navy’s assertion and the subsequent allocation of water rights together with the imposition of IWVGA’s “Basin Replenishment Fee”.

I have made my intentions known to the public and the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Information from all sources referenced is deemed to be reliable.

I am seeking to retain an Attorney(s) to advise me as well as potential members of the Class and to represent us in the Class Action. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that I may answer your questions.

Mike Sinnott, Trustee

Pauline B. Sinnott Revocable Family Trust

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Current Water News and Lawsuit News v. Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority

Go to Index

Water News

October 2 2021 California Republican Delegation Statement on Biden Administration Politicizing Water Deliveries for Struggling Communities | Congressman Kevin McCarthy (house.gov)

Yesterday, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced it is reinitiating consultation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2019 biological opinions related to the coordinated long-term operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP).

California GOP

Let’s find out who in the California Republican Delegation slipped the “Department of Defense” into Section 10720.3 of SGMA in order to let Navy at China Lake assert federal reserve water rights without challenge. An adjudication court under SGMA’s will say Navy’s assertion “must be respected in full”.

Plaintiff

Go to Index

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Yesterday’s Relevant News



  • September 29 2021 Filed under “prioritizing water resiliency and water storage”, McCarthy secures local priorities in NDAA (ridgecrestca.com Now 404)
  • January 28, 2021 Soda ash royalty cut puts Trona schools in a bind by Lauren Jennings (Ridgecrest Daily Independent)

The bill has support from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said the Mojave desert “is home to many pioneers of innovation that work on technologies that strengthen our national security and improve the way we go about our daily lives,” McCarthy said. “The research and development of these technologies often require critical minerals that are also mined in Trona.

I am proud of Paul’s leadership to ensure our communities can continue to lead the world on this work. California has been blessed with abundant natural resources and Congress will continue to advance bills like Paul’s that promote job creation, support American business competitiveness in the global economy, and keep us at the epicenter of innovation and exploration.”

San Bernardino County Centinnel

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Questions and Answers

What is the doctrine of “federal reserve water rights” and why does it matter that Navy is claiming they “must be respected” by SGMA?

Go to Index

What is a doctrine?

doctrine dŏk′trĭn noun
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. More at Wordnik

What is the doctrine of federal reserve water rights?

Read all about it from the DOJ here: Federal Reserved Water Rights And State Law Claims (justice.gov)

Does the federal government determine who has water rights and who doesn’t?

No, states do but in rare exceptions the federal government may intervene when it comes to providing water rights to Indian reservations or to others where surface waters and beneficial use issues are concerned. Again, those issues are generally settled in state courts but an allocation may be made in the form of a federally reserved water right within the framework of federal laws.

Why does the U.S. Navy at Naval Air Warfare Station China Lake say that their assertion of Federal Reserve Water Rights must be respected as per SGMA?

See Section 10720.3. Someone placed the words “including the U.S. Department of Defense” into the section that was addressing federally reserved water rights for Indian tribes or Other Sovereigns.

Did SGMA Section 10720.3 permit the federal goverment (DOD) to assert federal reserved water rights on BLM Public Lands whether or not they’re currently reserved by military installations?

No, the section says “federal reserved water rights must be respected in full”.

Does the DOD or U.S. Navy need approval from Congress to give the DOD authority to utilize the doctrine of federally reserved water rights on U.S. Military reservations?

The DOD likely needs authority from Congress to use the doctrine of federally reserved water rights, especially when applied to a DOD reservation. The Department of Justice and the Department of Interior will likely both weigh in on the issue.

Adverse financial consequences and hardships have resulted from Navy’s assertion. These are now becoming realized losses and damages. Consider the economic harm to private property owners and businesses that rely on groundwater rights and allocations that aren’t adjudicated by SGMA but are allocated to and claimed by Navy.

Did Congress authorize the DOD to authorize the U.S. Navy to assert a doctrine called “federal reserve water rights” on BLM Public Lands Status Withdrawn?

No.

Is the State of California ceding it’s authority to determine if the federal government (DOD) is lawfully allocated water by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency created under SGMA?

Yes.

Is SGMA protecting the water rights of property owners, businesses, water districts or any other person living in a groundwater basin controlled by the SGMA and a GSA?

No. SGMA avoids the issues of deciding or prioritizing water rights entirely. See Section 10720.5

Are property owners, businesses, and renters in SGMA-GSA water districts suffering direct financial and consequential damages as a result of Navy’s assertion of “FRWR’s” and the State of California’s acceptance in statute that “federal reserved water rights shall be respected”?

Yes.

Did the U.S. Navy have a seat at the table during the formation of the Groundwater Authority?

Yes. They volunteered to help guide the administration of the new Groundwater Authority all the way through the approval of the GSP, and their experts were there to help. Now they can sit back and watch while all the attorneys adjudicate away in state court. Here’s why:

10720 (d) In an adjudication of rights to the use of groundwater, and in the management of a groundwater basin or subbasin by a groundwater sustainability agency or by the board, federally reserved water rights to groundwater shall be respected in full.

March 18 2016 IWVGA Meeting #GA20160318

Navy intends to be at the table – also looking at other federal funding possibilities – authorities to address studies etc

March 18 2016 IWVGA Meeting #GA20160318

You’re calling it Navy’s “FWRW” Strategy? And the adjudication court will have a predetermined outcome in Navy’s favor?

Yes and yes. It started with the Navy Southwest Region’s environmental and regional environmental coordination office. It’s obvious Navy spent much time in planning as well as strategic resources to put this strategy in motion over 5 years ago.

See Ms. Ostapuk JD, at NSR on July for more information and a video where she actually describes the strategy!

As for adjudication court, it’s not within the jurisdiction of the court to determine Navy’s water rights, nor is it permitted under SGMA 10720.3 as Navy’s assertion shall be “respected in full”.

The Navy couldn’t have done all this by themselves could they? Was there a political strategy too?

Someone had to guide the “FRWR strategy” NSR to Sacramento prior to the passage of SGMA 10720.3 in September 2014, along with guidance continuing all the way up through the formation of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and the final approval of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan in 2020!

Have you retained an attorney yet?

Not yet.

What’s the first order of business if or when the lawsuit is filed in Federal District Court?

Seek the waiver of sovereign immunity and an injunction on the collection of “replenishment fees” by the Indian Wells Valley Groundeater Authority for starters.

When will you be registering the class members?

Unknown, but a “subscribe to” IWVGA Class Action functionality will be added here when the time comes and then you’ll be notified automatically with current news or updates.

This page will be updated and improved as needed. Please bookmark it for future reference.

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

Go to Index

Bureau of Land Management

Status and Information on Public Land Withdrawal for NAWS China Lake

Naval Air Warfare Station, China Lake is located on 1.1 million acres of BLM Public Land in California’s high Mojave Desert.

The withdrawal status of NAWSCL was extended in 2018 as a result of Sec. 2845.

Go to Index

August 1, 2005 Department of the Interior

Part 603: Land Withdrawal Program Chapter 1: Policy and Responsibility

Withdrawals | Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov)

Land Tenure | Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov)

(blm.gov)

December 23 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 2845. DURATION OF WITHDRAWAL AND RESERVATION OF PUBLIC
LAND, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
Section 2979 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113–66; 127 Stat.
1047) is amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2039’’ and inserting ‘‘March
31, 2064’’

Vital NAWS China Lake Funding Secured by McCarthy in Appropriations Bills | Congressman Kevin McCarthy (house.gov)

Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation noticed by BLM after passage of NDAA:

May 22 2017 Enactment of Public Law 114-328, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

This Information Bulletin (IB) is to alert all affected BLM personnel to the enactment of Public Law 114-328, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.  The new law contains the following seven provisions of interest to the BLM:

https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2017-043

Department of the Interior Departmental Manual. Effective Date: 8/1/05 . Series: Public Lands . Part 603: Land Withdrawal Program . Chapter 1: Policy and Responsibility . Originating Office: Bureau of Land Management . 603 DM 1. 1.1 Policy. In general, the Secretary of the Interior is vested by statute and under limited

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (blm.gov)

Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1714(a), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make, modify, extend, or revoke withdrawals. That authority may be delegated only to individuals in the Office of the Secretary who have been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the

https://www.ntc.blm.gov › krc › uploads › 977 › IM 2015-119, National Environmental Policy Act Review for Land Withdrawals.pdf

https://www.blm.gov › office › california-state-office

Abundant natural resources on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in California and northwestern Nevada supports the BLM’s multiple-use mission and provides important economic benefits to Californians and the nation. … 

February 21 2021 Has the BLM Turned Federally Managed Public Lands Into an Unconstitutional Federal Enclave? – Jurisdiction on Federally Owned Public Lands (publiclandjurisdiction.com)

Go to Index

Naval Air Warfare Station China Lake (NAWSCL)

How the DOD and Navy created a ‘FRWR’ loophole to exploit SGMA in their quest for strategic water dominance in the western United States

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake homepage (navy.mil)

Go to Index

surreptitiously adverb

  1. In a surreptitious manner; stealthilyfurtivelysecretly.
  2. in a surreptitious manner
  3. The Century Dictionary.More at Wordnik

The “doctrine” of federal reserve water rights originates from case law beginning in 1908: when the United States sets aside an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. Indian Reservations are permanent withdrawals. Navy’s withdrawal of BLM Public Land is a temporary withdrawal of 25 years or less.

Department of Justice “Federal Reserve Water Rights” web page

Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). There, the United States Supreme Court ruled, when the United States sets aside an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with the priority date established as of the date of the reservation.

Department of Justice “Federal Reserve Water Rights” web page

Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). In that case, the Court held that the reserved rights doctrine is not limited to Indian reservations, but also applies to all federally reserved public lands, such as national forests, national recreation areas, and national wildlife refuges.

Department of Justice “Federal Reserve Water Rights” web page

Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976), the Court upheld an injunction against groundwater pumping that would have jeopardized one of the purposes for which the national monument at issue had been established – preservation of the desert pupfish – thereby extending the reach of the reserved rights doctrine to protect federal reserved rights both from injurious surface and groundwater diversions.

Department of Justice “Federal Reserve Water Rights” web page

United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978), the Court denied the Forest Service’s instream flow claim for fish, wildlife and recreation uses. Specifically, the Court denied the claim on the grounds that reserved water rights for National Forest lands established under the Forest Service’s Organic Act of 1897 are limited to the minimum amount of water necessary to satisfy the primary purposes of the Organic Act – conservation of favorable water flows and the production of timber – and were not available to satisfy the claimed instream flow uses. This decision established that questions concerning the existence and quantity of reserved water rights are largely dependent upon the reservation’s authorizing legislation and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved.

Department of Justice “Federal Reserve Water Rights” web page

Navy made the claim of federal reserve water rights using misleading “Caps”, Federal Reserve Water Rights, implying that “FRWR” is a federal Law, not a “doctrine”.

See 2 Capt. Dale Letters See also Cmdr Benson

Navy’s claim that it has FRWR’s is contrary to both the doctrine of federal reserve water rights as well as being unsupported based on previous Statements made to Congress by the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Land Managment (H.R. 4458 -McCarthy CA, S.1230-Barrasso WY)

Documented herein

The use of the doctrine of “federal reserve water rights” by a department of the U.S. Military is unprecedented and has far reaching consequences for communities sharing groundwater basins with military reservations on 16,000,000 acres of BLM Public Lands, Status Withdrawn.

Plaintiff

Go to Index

July 18 2020 IWVGA Meeting, Closing Comments from Navy Representative, Commander Peter Benson:

Navy continues to be a committed partner to help the GA and the community on strategies to bring the basin into sustainable yield and will lean in as far as we can within the unique and specific federal legal limitations.

As we understand the purpose of SGMA, it is NOT to make decisions on water rights in the basin, but rather allocations to bring the basin into sustainable yield.

In response to the GA and to further their SGMA goals, Navy submitted a report to outline historic pumping, changes in pumping, current pumping, anticipated base growth and demographics of off-base personnel in support of the mission, in good faith to aid the GSP development. As part of that report, the Navy agreed to an allocation of 2041 ac-ft through the GSP process to support on base activity, to include anticipated growth.

The Navy did not provide a Federal reserve water right (FRWR) number, as that will be decided through an adjudication after extensive discovery and cross examination.

The IWVGA alone made the decision to use Navy’s pumping data to estimate a FRWR.

Additionally, the IWVGA made the allocation decisions to transfer the IWVGA estimated FRWR.

The Navy did not direct, ask or imply that the IWVGA should transfer the estimated FRWR balance.

Commander Peter Benson June 18 2020

https://roadrunner395.com/2021/10/11/kevin-mccarthys-navy-base-scores-the-hat-trick-sgma-battered-blm-beaten-and-coso-geothermal-splits-profits-50-50-whats-next-at-naws-china-lake-secret-city/

Go to Index

surreptitious sûr″əp-tĭsh′əs adjective

  • Obtained, done, or made by clandestine or stealthy means. synonym: secret.
  • Done or made by stealth, or without proper authority; made or introduced fraudulently; clandestine; stealthy.
  • stealthyfurtivewell hiddencovert (especially movements)
  • The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.More at Wordnik

Go to Index

U.S. Navy Strategy

Introduction to Navy’s strategy using the doctrine of “federal reserve water rights” at NAWSCL through the IWVGA

Go to Index

The doctrine of federal reserved water rights generally traces its origins to the seminal decision of Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).  There, the United States Supreme Court ruled, when the United States sets aside an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with the priority date established as of the date of the reservation – Department of Justice

Federal Reserved Water Rights And State Law Claims (justice.gov)

“The U.S. Navy’s FRWR Strategy”

October 10 2016 IWVGA Meeting: “A seat at the table”

https://roadrunner395.com/2021/10/10/2016-iwvga-meetings

The U.S. military has temporary reservations covering 16,000,000 acres of BLM Public Lands. (BLM Statement to Congress H.R. 4458)

The U.S. Navy has 10 installations in the State of California.

The U.S. Navy currently uses 1.1 million acres of BLM Public Land, Status Withdrawn. The “Lease” on this BLM Public Land was renewed in 2013 by Congress and expires in approximately 17 years on March 31 2064.

The withdrawal must be renewed every 10, 20 or 25 years and voted on by Congress. Status is Withdrawn by Navy. (see below, the lease was extended 25 more years on top of 25 year extension in the 2013 NDAA.)

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act included Sec. 2845, which extended the NAWSCL “Lease” another 25 years to 2064.

December 23 2016 (PDF) McCarthy – NDAA FY17 Sec 2845 NAWSCL BLM Withdrawal extended to March 31, 2064 (No BLM/DOI Statements, no notification)

10720.3. APPLICABILITY OF PART AND PARTICIPATION OF OTHER SOVEREIGNS


(a) This part applies to all groundwater basins in the state.


(b) To the extent authorized under federal or tribal law, this part applies to an Indian tribe and to the
federal government, including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Defense.


(c) The federal government or any federally recognized Indian tribe, appreciating the shared interest in assuring the sustainability of groundwater resources, may voluntarily agree to participate in the
preparation or administration of a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan
under this part through a joint powers authority or other agreement with local agencies in the basin. A participating tribe shall be eligible to participate fully in planning, financing, and management under this part, including eligibility for grants and technical assistance, if any exercise of regulatory authority, enforcement, or imposition and collection of fees is pursuant to the tribe’s independent authority and not pursuant to authority granted to a groundwater sustainability agency under this part.


(d) In an adjudication of rights to the use of groundwater, and in the management of a groundwater
basin or subbasin by a groundwater sustainability agency or by the board, federally reserved water
rights to groundwater shall be respected in full.
In case of conflict between federal and state law in that adjudication or management, federal law shall prevail. The voluntary or involuntary participation of a holder of rights in that adjudication or management shall not subject that holder to state law regarding other proceedings or matters not authorized by federal law. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Section 10720.3

Go to Index

July 14 2016 U.S. Navy Stategy (NAWSCL): Kathryn Ostapuk JD, Navy Region Southwest (Video)

  • Legal Strategy Navy Southwest Region (Region 9), Regional Environmental Coordination Office (REC)

Governmental Affairs – US Navy – Aug 2015 – Present, 6 years 3 months, California

Environmental Law and Policy – Navy Region Europe, Africa, Southwest Asia Aug 2010 – Aug 2015, 5 years 1 month, Naples Area, Italy

Environmental Law and Policy – US Navy Jan 2004 – Jul 2010, 6 years 7 months, Greater San Diego Area

Ostapuk, Kathryn – Governmental Affairs – US Navy | LinkedIn

Kathryn Ostapuk can be reached at 619-532-2285 or Kathryn.ostapuk@navy.mil.

C.L. Stathos, Deputy Regional Environmental Coordinator

Go to Index

July 14, 2016: Overview of Water Policy, Regulations and Current Challenges Facing Military Installations in Regions with Scarce Water Resources” by Ms. Kathryn Ostapuk

SERDP & ESTCP Webinar Series – DOD’s Environmental and Research Programs

Abstract: Viable and sustainable water resources are becoming scarcer, and competition for these resources is growing every day. Long term sustainability will take ingenuity, not just on the part of the Department of Defense (DoD), but in the communities where our installations are located. Engaging in new legislative initiatives and regulatory frameworks is one way to ensure that our installations are an integral part of the solution. As an example, California is home to 30 major military installations and has been enduring a sustained severe drought that has significantly depleted groundwater reserves. DoD has supported several initiatives in California such as the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) as well as regulatory programs that support new standards for water conservation, recycled water, brine discharge and storm water reuse. All of these programs will preserve water resources for our DoD installations into the future.

Go to Index

July 14, 2016 SERDP & ESTCP Webinar Series

Video has 61 views thru September 27, 2021

Go to Index

  • The U.S Navy intends to be at the table

Partial transcript from Video. Emphasis added in bold or italics.

  • 06:45 Ms. Ostapuk’s presentation begins
  • 15:20 Slide 19 SGMA
  • Ten Major Navy Installation in California
  • Regional Environmental Control Office (REC) Region 9
  • 19:28 McCarron Amendment subjects federal government to State Adjudication
  • Military is subject to State adjudication and miltary water use is a “beneficial use” under State Statute
  • 20:10 Edwards AFB Adjudication settled with 150 parties and was very complex (Cit. needed PRE-SGMA?)
  • State Adjudication Court as per Ms. Ostapuk: “…the Military has federal reserve water rights that trumps and takes priority over all other beneficial uses. So, the court affirmed the existence of federal reserve water rights and treated all of those rights as a priority”.
  • Edwards AFB was allocated as much as they might use in the future to accomplish their mission
  • 23:08 China Lake in Severe Overdraft, Pistachio farmer competition
  • We can send our water experts”, “We can’t give money or become voting members”

“Navy and BLM will stay in touch but not weigh in on financials since they don’thave a stake in the finances”

See April 15,2016 IWVGA Meeting Summary
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Robert Pawalek, Chief of Resources
U.S. Navy Commander Jared Markley, Environmental Counsel

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin GSA-Eligible Agencies Group Meeting Summary Notes 4/15/16: Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGMA) (squarespace.com)
  • “Water rights litigations takes decades, it’s not easy, it’s painful and creates lots of broken relationships.”
  • “When the military is at the table and everyone is aware we have our federal reserve water rights so we can participate in adjudication and get our rights and walk away”

Indian Wells Valley Water District has filed a lawsuit in the State’s Adjudication court

Searles Valley Minerals has filed a lawsuit in the State’s Ajudication court

  • “When we’re sitting in the room and we’re participating and we’re going to say, you know what, we’re going to conserve and we’re going to take our cut. There’s something about that creates trust in an environment and we become the honest broker and I think it’s a role that we take seriously and I think it’s important.

U.S. Navy was awarded an allocation of 7,650 acre-feet of water per year when they use 2112 af (Verify Current 2020)

July 18 2020 IWVGA Meeting, Closing Comments from Navy Representative, Commander Peter Benson

Navy continues to be a committed partner to help the GA and the community on strategies to bring the basin into sustainable yield and will lean in as far as we can within the unique and specific federal legal limitations.

As we understand the purpose of SGMA, it is NOT to make decisions on water rights in the basin, but rather allocations to bring the basin into sustainable yield.

In response to the GA and to further their SGMA goals, Navy submitted a report to outline historic pumping, changes in pumping, current pumping, anticipated base growth and demographics of off-base personnel in support of the mission, in good faith to aid the GSP development. As part of that report, the Navy agreed to an allocation of 2041 ac-ft through the GSP process to support on base activity, to include anticipated growth.

The Navy did not provide a Federal reserve water right (FRWR) number, as that will be decided through an adjudication after extensive discovery and cross examination.

The IWVGA alone made the decision to use Navy’s pumping data to estimate a FRWR.

Additionally, the IWVGA made the allocation decisions to transfer the IWVGA estimated FRWR.

The Navy did not direct, ask or imply that the IWVGA should transfer the estimated FRWR balance.

Commander Peter Benson June 18 2020

Go to Index

Ms. Kathryn Ostapuk is the Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Coordinator for RDML Rich, Commander, Navy Region Southwest, as well as the Department of Defense Regional Environmental Coordinator (DoD REC) for USEPA Region IX. In this capacity, Ms. Ostapuk advises on multi-media environmentally-related compliance issues, analyzes proposed legislation and regulatory policies, and prepares testimony (written and oral) on emergent state legislation and regulation throughout USEPA Region IX (primarily California). She also identifies and coordinates cross-service issues to present to state and federal regulators and legislators. In addition, Ms. Ostapuk advises REGCOM on strategic communications with elected and appointed officials at the federal, state and local levels.

The U.S. Military via the Navy Southwest Region is bluffing. A Federal Court is the only place to decide if the U.S. Navy has “federal reserve water rights” that “trumps” all other water users beneficial interests. Edwards settlement is meaningless. As far as coming to the table as an honest broker, is there anything honest about the frwr assertion made by Navy? See definition of surreptitious…

Plaintiff

Military Challenges – Ostapuk presentation (suggestions):

  • Few military bases produce their own water
    • (NAWSCL does. Pursue a strategy of duplex redundancy-IWVWD at the hub, processed according to State Regs, arsenic removal, quality etc. IWVWD is in the business)
  • Acquiring sustainable sources of water
    • (Work jointly with IWVWD to determine best locations for inter-boundary pipelines together with a CITY/IWVWD partnership on the Wastewater Treatment Facility)
  • Frequently changing water demand depending on mission
    • (IWVWD provides services finding and buying water, flexible seller or buyer, perhaps from NAWSCL)
  • Aging Infrastructure
    • (New infrastructure Included with the above with even more redundancy.)
  • Water reliant landscaping
    • (Plenty of water-saving alternatives, mesquite, desert willow, rocks)
  • Financial constraints (We all have them. See ‘Replenishment Fee’)
  • Conservation – E.O. 13693 required a 36% reduction in potable water consumption by the federal government using 2007 as a baseline and 2025 as the target year.
    • (Navy has already reduced water consumption by 54% since 2007)
  • (Navy becomes a producer and controls the “basin re-balancing” dial using DRI barometer)
  • (IWVWD should be viewed as a Customer, Contractor and Partner. Ready. Set. Go.)

Go to Index

GSA Formation and Composition, IWV Groundwater Basin, IWVGA Management Area (Maps)

Board Members

Kern County

Inyo County

January 14 2020 Inyo County Board Meeting Minutes:

Supervisor Kingsley, the Board’s representative on the IWVGA board, explained that the Indian Wells basin is in trouble and looking to Inyo County for a solution. He said the rest of the IWVGA board’s constituents have benefited from the basin being in overdraft for 50 years while Inyo County has experienced little growth in comparison. He said, with talks about expanding and growing Ridgecrest, it seems the residents of the Indian Wells basin do not recognize the dire situation they’re in, even though Vallejo has communicated this from the IWVGA board dais many times. He said it is encouraging that LADWP has said it won’t be a partner to the plan and wants to make sure Inyo County is comfortable with any other options before supporting those. Chairperson Kingsley said his intention is to have Inyo County vote “no” on the Groundwater Sustainability Plan

https://www.inyocounty.us/sites/default/files/2020-02/20200114Minutes.pdf

ORDINANCE NO. 1004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE INYO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AMENDING CHAPTER 18.77 OF THE INYO COUNTY CODE TO REGULATE THE TRANSFER OR TRANSPORT OF WATER FROM GROUNDWATER BASINS LOCATED WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN INYO COUNTY, AMENDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE AND REPEALING INYO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1003

https://www.inyowater.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Water_Resources/Inyo_County_Ordinance_1004.pdf

San Bernardino County

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake

The Ground-Water Flow System in Indian Wells Valley, Kern, Inyo, and San Bernardino Counties, California

Peter Martin, Charles Berenbrock | April 11th, 1991

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4191

Bloyd and Robson (1971, p. 12) used the 1912 and 1953 estimates of average annual evapotranspiration by Kunkel and Chase (1969, p. 69) as initial estimates of natural recharge and discharge for the model that they developed. In calibrating the model, Bloyd and Robson determined the natural recharge and discharge to be 9,850 acre-ft/yr.

Bloyd and Robson (1971, p. 13) determined that about 64 percent (6,280 acre-ft/yr) of the recharge originates from the Sierra Nevada on the west side of the valley, about 32 percent (3,170 acre-ft/yr) originates in the Coso and Argus Ranges on the north and northeast sides of the valley, and about 4 percent (400 acre-ft/yr) originates in the El Paso Mountains on the south side of the valley.

https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/report.pdf

Groundwater Resource Sustainability: Modeling Evaluation for the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, California

Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education
Reno, Nevada

Rose Valley and Coso Valley Basins not included in DFI Model.

3.3 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND FLOW DIRECTIONS
In the hydrogeologic conceptual model for Indian Wells Valley, the groundwater source is derived
from snowmelt and mountain block recharge from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, as well as from Rose Valley and Coso Valley basins. Groundwater inflows also enter Indian Wells Valley basin from the El Paso subbasin.
Previous studies have conceptualized that groundwater outflows occur because of groundwater pumping as well as discharge from the playa as evapotranspiration. Included in the updated steady-state analysis, groundwater flow is allowed to move downgradient to Searles Valley. This outflow was added in response to the lower than expected observed TDS concentrations and the need to export TDS downgradient.

DFI Model September 2016

Despite the legal limitations, as a matter of comity, the Navy has engaged in consistent, proactive, and cooperative advocacy to provide pumping data in order to assist the IWVGA efforts to study the sole source aquifer and prepare a plan to bring the aquifer into sustainable yield over the next 20 years. Consistent with past practices, the Navy submits 1,436 acre-feet as the groundwater pumping data for NAWSCL during CY 2020. This information provided to the IWVGA is for planning purposes only and does not constitute the Navy’s Federal Reserve Water Right (FRWR). As you know, the Navy has not provided the IWVGA Board with Navy’s FRWR as that would likely be established through litigation.

20210320 NAWSCL 2020 Pumping Report

Coso Geothermal not included or exempt from reporting to DWR-State or Navy-IWVGA:

Figure 1. Indian Wells Valley location and regional overview
Figure 8. Six delineated mountain block recharge zones.

Bureau of Land Management

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin “Basin”

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority Managment Area

Coso Geothermal

Coso Range – Petroglyphs

County Lines (Kern, Inyo, San Bernardino, IWV Basin (Blue), GA Management Area (Dark Blue), NAWS CL (Shaded)

Searles Valley Minerals

Town of Trona

Boundary Maps

Light blue is IWV Watershed Boundary

Dark Blue is IWV Basin and Managment Area

Anyone that extracts groundwater from an unmanaged area must submit an extraction report to the State Water Board each year. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/intervention.htmltion.html

Department of Water Resources:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gmp/intervention.htmltion.html

July 1, 2017Entire basin is not covered by GSA(s) or Alternative
Feb. 1, 2020Basin is in critical overdraft and there is no plan or DWR fails plan
Feb. 1, 2022No plan or DWR fails plan and basin is in long-term overdraft
Feb. 1, 2025DWR fails plan and basin has significant surface water depletions

Levels of State Intervention

  • Umanaged Area
    An unmanaged area is a part of a basin not within the management area of a GSA before July 1, 2017.  Anyone that extracts groundwater from an unmanaged area must submit an extraction report to the State Water Board each year.  The first extraction reports are due by Dec. 15, 2017, and must include well location and capacity, where the water was used, purpose of use, and monthly extraction volumes.
  • Probationary Basin
    If locals fail to form a GSA, fail to develop an adequate sustainability plan, or fail to implement the plan successfully, the Board may designate the entire basin probationary.  Anyone who extracts groundwater from a probationary basin must file an extraction report with the State Water Board unless the Board decides to exclude certain types of extractions.  The Board may require the use of a meter to measure extractions and reporting of additional information.
  • Interim Plan
    The Board will allow local agencies time to fix the issues in the basin that led to probation.  If local agencies are unable to fix the deficiencies, the Board will develop an interim plan to directly manage groundwater extractions.  An interim plan will contain corrective actions, a timeline to make the basin sustainable, and a monitoring plan to ensure corrective actions are working.

Did IWVGA request a basin modification to include Coso Geothermal? No.

https://sgma.water.ca.gov/basinmod/modrequest/submitted
Owens Valley Groundwater Authority. Coso Geothermal (red dot). City of Ridgecrest (red dot)

BLM Lands Inyo County

https://maps.princeton.edu/catalog/stanford-cv903vw9216

https://maps.princeton.edu/catalog/stanford-cv903vw9216

Coso Geothermal (NAWSCL)

Coso Operating Company, LLC, has operated the Coso Geothermal Projects at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center in Inyo County since 1987.  Consisting of four separate but interlinked geothermal power plants, the Coso site is one of the top three producers of geothermal electrical power in the United States.  The company leases the geothermal site from the U.S. Navy and BLM.  The project has produced as much as 270 megawatts of electricity, enough power to supply 250,000 homes.

https://cosoenergy.com/

Coso Operating Company strives to be a good neighbor:

Coso Operating Company has operated the Coso Geothermal Projects at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center in Inyo County since 1987.

The Coso Geothermal project has contributed nearly $140 million in property tax revenue to Inyo County.

BLM royalty payments provide additional sources of revenue to the County.

Coso does business with more than 50 local businesses.

Coso employs over 80 of your friends and neighbors who reside in the communities of Kern and Inyo counties.

Supports the local schools, sports programs, charitable organizations and community events throughout Inyo and Kern counties.

Provides scholarships for local students.

30 year partnership of investing in and working with Inyo County.

Winner of President’s National Environmental Achievement Award.

https://cosoenergy.com/community/

In addition to providing clean and green power to the grid, Coso Operating Company has a long track record of being responsible stewards of the environment and the natural resources under its control.  The Coso Geothermal projects also have been a major economic benefit to Inyo and Kern County residents.  As the largest private taxpayer in Inyo County, Coso has generated over $140 million in property taxes and has provided substantial revenue from the BLM royalty process and sales tax.  The Company is one of the largest private employers in the area and purchases goods and services from more than 50 local businesses.  It also is a major supporter of local schools, charities and community organizations. Coso Team Members are responsible members of the communities in which they live and are concerned about maintaining the quality of life and unique High Desert lifestyle.

Coso Operating Company

Coso Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information (openei.org)

Go to Index

July 27 2018 McCarthy and Cook Secure Provision to Fund Water Security at NAWS China Lake (McCarthy Press Release)

  • On July 26, 2018, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act with Congressman Kevin McCarthy’s support by a vote of 359 to 54. 
  • Section 313 of the Conference Report allows 50% of the funds generated from geothermal resources on a military base to remain at that base for infrastructure improvements rather than going to Washington to be reallocated.
  • This provision means that Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake will be able to retain 50% of the funds generated from electricity sales at the Coso Geothermal Facility on the base.  NAWS China Lake can use these funds for installation-related energy or water security initiatives.
  • According to the Department of Defense, $15 million is generated annually at the Coso Geothermal Facility on NAWS China Lake.

GEOTHERMAL ON DOD LAND

Within the approximate 32 million acres of DoD-managed land within the United States, geothermal potential primarily exists within the western U.S. based on previous geological research. Geothermal potential OCONUS has been identified at CLDJ, Djibouti, Guam, Japan, Naples, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Navy Geothermal Program Office

$15,000,000 per year in electricity sales

NAWSCL now receives $7.5 million per year or “50% of the funds generated from electricity sales” can be used for installation-related energy or water security initiatives”?

See Below July 27 2018

Coso Geothermal

Between 80-90 production wells operate at a given time, producing a mass flow rate of more than 14 million pounds per hour. Depending on the volume of fluid that needs to be handled and where pressure support is required the Coso field can use between 30 to 40 injection wells. 

Coso Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information (openei.org)

Terra-Gen, LLC, the current owner of the Coso Geothermal Facility, has many plans to increase production from the field. Since the field is liquid-limited, one idea is to inject more water into the reservoir. In 2009, Terra-Gen obtained the critical permits from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to begin construction of a 9-mile pipeline for recharging the existing reservoir.[8] The intent of the project, referred to as the Hay Ranch Water Project, is to inject supplemental water into the reservoir to stabilize and enhance the field, increasing electricity production to serve an estimated 50,000 more homes, or about 50 MW. The BLM completed an extensive environmental review and concluded there will be no significant negative impacts from the project. Coso also obtained a Conditional Use Permit from Inyo County, after another Environmental Impact Review . A further barrier to the project was overcome by reaching settlement with Little Lake Ranch, Inc. to provide improvements around Little Lake to ensure the availability of water for recreational and habitat conservation purposes. After this delay, Terra-Gen completed the construction of the pipeline in late 2009.

Coso Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information (openei.org)

Ongoing Navy Projects

-Shallow Temperature Survey

-Microgravity Survey

-Microseismic Analysis and Interpretation

-3D Conceptual Geologic Model

Wells of Opportunity

-Machine Learning of Geothermal Reservoir Datasets

Current Projects (navygeo.com)

Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) and desalination institutes operate like any other industrial plant. The water – sea water or brackish water for desalination plants, and sewage for WWTP, are the raw materials. The water purification process, in both cases, is an industrial process for all intents and purposes. 

Desalination Plants and Sewage Treatment (environment.co.il)

See Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act – 2021 Version (March Update) (ca.gov)

Go to Index

Water in NAWSCL Coso Geologic Field…

Go to Index

Coso Geothermal Area | Open Energy Information (openei.org)

  • 1860: “Boiling hot springs to the south” mentioned by a miner, M. H. Farley.
  • 1881: Government survey of the area described “Hot Sulphur Springs”
  • 1895: Land deeded to William T. Grant.
  • 1909: Health resort developed by Grant.
  • 1943: Health resort closed.
  • 1947: Land obtained by Naval Air Weapons Station.
  • 1960s: Dr. Carl Austin advised the Navy to develop the geothermal resource.
  • 1977: Full-scale scientific and engineering investigations of the geothermal resource; drilling 17 heat flow holes, collecting large quantities of geophysical and geologic data; and drilling one deep test hole.
  • 1979: 4,850 foot deep test hole provided commercial temperature and flow rate, leading to a contract with California Energy Co.
  • 1981: First successful production well completed.
  • 1987: First double flash geothermal power unit on-line (Navy I) of 90 MW Caithness Energy LLC, becomes the operator of the field for the Navy delivering power to Southern California Edison.
  • 1988: 2nd double flash geothermal power unit on-line (Navy II) of 90 MW.
  • 1989: 3rd and 4th double flash geothermal power unit on-line (BLM East and BLM west) for a total of 90 MW.
  • 1993: Implementation of LO-CAT® process for hydrogen sulfide removal and a sulfided, activated carbon media upstream for mercury removal.
  • 2001: Brookhaven National Lab wins R&D 100 award for development of silica removal technology.
  • 2002: DOE award to demonstrate hydraulic fracturing technology at the Coso location for a total of $4.5 million over five years as part of a $12 million dollar effort by the Energy and Geoscience Institute at University of Utah and Caithness Energy.
  • 2009: Terra-Gen Power takes over operation of the field; construction begins on pipeline for increasing reservoir recharge. Pipeline finished in late 2009

The Military Business Model

The business model used by the GPO is based on a time-tested and accepted concept of “farming-in,” which was developed more than five decades ago by the oil and gas industry. The approach is based on the premise that when front-end, high-risk exploration is done by a company at their own expense, they may decide for one reason or another that the prospect does not meet their economic criteria. So, they seek a partner who is willing to make the investment, and they take an overriding interest in the play. Agreements between the parties are fully negotiated, taking into consideration how much was put into the delineation phase, current market conditions, and current/projected operating expenses. In short, if the economics of a project do not “pencil out” favorably, no deal will be struck.

There are a number of reasons why the Navy has adopted this type of model. First, and probably most important, it lowers front end risk and facilitates securing of project financing without a large initial capital outlay by the geothermal developer. Second, it is a model with which the industry is familiar. Third, it encourages development and exploitation of renewable resources—something that is required by U.S. Department of Defense policy—by providing pre-investment knowledge developed by the GPO. Finally, it cuts down dramatically on the likelihood of fruitless encroachment by speculators who secure the developmental rights, but don’t have the capital to conduct the requisite technical investigations to prove the resource. Their presence on a military facility represents encroachment that must be managed, but with no value.

http://cosogeo.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/coso.pdf

Middle River Power, Managed Assets


Coso Geothermal (“Coso”) is located in central California, on the military-owned Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake. Coso has been producing geothermal power continuously since 1987. The plant consists of four geothermal power stations that have a total of nine – 30 MW turbine-generator sets for an overall rated capacity of 270 MW with over a 98% availability factor. Coso has a Power Purchase Agreement with Southern California Edison which will allow Navy I, Navy II, and BLM to receive a firm energy price through January 2030 and has recently completed an agreement that would permit Coso’s energy and renewable energy credits to be available for sale in 2019.

https://www.middleriverpower.com/

December 15 2020 Coso Geothermal closes a $323 million refinancing deal.

Originally developed in 1987, the 142-megawatt Coso Geothermal facility has been a steady source of renewable power for the Southern California region for more than three decades. The Coso site is considered one of the top three producers of geothermal electrical power in the United States.

CIT arranged the financing on behalf of project sponsor Avenue Capital and its wholly owned asset manager Middle River Power, and other co-owners Bardin Hill, Corre, and Voya investment funds, . The project is supported by three separate power purchase agreements that enable the delivery of Coso’s reliable baseload geothermal-generated electricity to customers.

CIT Serves as Coordinating Lead Arranger for $323 Million Geothermal Financing

And there you have the likely reason for NAWS China Lake’s BLM extension from 17 years remaining on the term to 43 years.

Go to Index

McCarthy Timeline

April 24 2013 Congressman Kevin McCarthy introduces H.R. 4458

April 29, 2014 McCarthy/Gleason go to Washington

2016 NDAA Sec. 2845 Extends NAWSCL BLM Withdrawal to 2064

Go to Index

“The idea that anybody in Ridgecrest could pick someone different is beyond me,” said McCarthy.

House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy held a press conference Monday during his visit to Ridgecrest announcing his support for Mick Gleason.

“The idea that anybody in Ridgecrest could pick someone different is beyond me,” said McCarthy.

“We can’t have anyone better to represent us at our highest level of government than Kevin McCarthy,” said Gleason.

October 24, 2012 McCarthy urges support for Gleason (The News Review, Pat Farris Publisher)

Kern County District 1 Supervisor Mick Gleason biography (NAWSCL Commanding Officer, 2008-2010 or ?)

After retiring from active duty after 27 years, Mr. Gleason accepted a job as a senior program manager with General Dynamics and has also helped launch the China Lake Alliance, a community advocacy group, designed to support the US Navy at China Lake.

Biography – Mick Gleason: Kern County Supervisor First District (kerncounty.com)

April 24, 2013 McCarthy Introduces Legislation to Secure China Lake’s Future (H.R. 4458)

McCarthy Press Release

April 29, 2014 Testimony in favor of the legislation H.R. 4458 was given by the former Commanding Officer of NAWSCL, Capt. Mick Gleason (USN ret.) (Press Release by Congressman Kevin McCarthy)

Go to Index

Statement by Department of Interior-BLM on H.R. 4458

April 29, 2014, the Statement below was issued by the Department of the Interior re: H.R. 4458 which was introduced by Congressman McCarthy to change the Navy’s reservation of BLM Public Lands from Status Withdrawn to a Status of Permanent Withdrawal.

Department of Interior Statement to Congress H.R. 4458

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior (DOI) on H.R. 4458, which would eliminate the termination date on the Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake withdrawal, and withdraw and reserve additional public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for military purposes in California. The Administration supports the continued use of the NAWS China Lake lands under withdrawal as identified in H.R. 4458 by the Department of Defense (DOD), and as identified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 14, P.L. 113-66.

However, the Administration cannot support H.R. 4458 as written, as it would indefinitely extend the China Lake withdrawal without the very important periodic review by the DOD and DOI that is a part of the legislative withdrawal process. The Administration believes that this periodic review by the two Departments, as well as the Congress and the public, is vital to promoting high-quality stewardship and management of the public lands.

Karen Mouritsen
Deputy Assistant Director
Energy, Minerals and Realty Management
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior

August 29, 2015 McCarthy to lead parade

The Parade of 1,000 Flags will feature a very special guest this year. Congressman Kevin McCarthy will be serving as the Grand Marshal of the parade Sept. 5.

McCarthy’s District Director Vince Fong confirmed Friday that the Congressman will be here.”He will be attending the parade and the organizers have made him the Grand Marshal.

The Daily Independent 404 https://www.ridgecrestca.com/article/20150829/news/150829693/
Pictured: Kevin McCarthy, flanked by Parade of 1000 Flags Chair Pat Farris (left) and Ridgecrest Mayor Peggy Breeden, is shown during his visit to Ridgecrest in September to serve as grand marshal of the parade. “Judy and I, we feel Ridgecrest is our home town,” he told listeners during his keynote address. — Photo by Laura Austin.
October 2 2015 McCarthy to be next Speaker? (The News Review Story First Published: 2015-10-02)

August 25 2016 IWVGA Meeting #GA20160825

Pat Farris asked if the GSA would have authority over tribal lands. Phill Hall, Kern County counsel, responded that the short answer is no because, like the Navy, tribal lands are not subject to state regulation, but that tribes can participate in the GSA if they wish to

December 23 2016 NDAA Sec. 2845. Duration of withdrawal and reservation of public land, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California: NDAA FY17

December 23, 2016 NDAA FY17 SEC. 2845. DURATION OF WITHDRAWAL AND RESERVATION OF PUBLIC
LAND, NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA.
Section 2979 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113–66; 127 Stat.
1047) is amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2039’’ and inserting ‘‘March
31, 2064’’

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

December 23, 2016 NDAA Fy17 Announcements?

Any Press Release by Congressman McCarthy? No.

Any Article in The News Review? No.

Was BLM aware of the withdrawal extension by NAWSCL? Unknown. Not Found.

Did the extension violate BLM Policies on military withdrawals to be 25 years or less? Unknown.

Questions

February 17 2017 Will we be exempt from hiring freeze? (The News Review news-ridgecrest.com)

Although discussions of another round of BRAC cropped up again as the freeze was authorized, Scott O’Neil, a former executive director of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division who is now the head of the China Lake Alliance, said that McCarthy’s office has not identified broad congressional interest in the measure.

He added that with the Navy being heavily impacted in past BRACs, it is likely to play only a minor role in subsequent rounds.

“This is a moving target right now. I tend to agree that a BRAC at this junction seems to be a long shot, but it still needs to be watched.”

http://www.news-ridgecrest.com/news/story.pl?id=0000006720

January 1, 2018 Chairman Gleason term ends on December 31, 2017. Vice-chair Breeden will transition from vice-chair to chair of the IWVGA starting in January 2018.

July 27 2018 McCarthy and Cook Secure Provision to Fund Water Security at NAWS China Lake: NDAA FY19 (McCarthy Press Release)

On July 26, 2018, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act with Congressman Kevin McCarthy’s support by a vote of 359 to 54. 

Section 313 of the Conference Report allows 50% of the funds generated from geothermal resources on a military base to remain at that base for infrastructure improvements rather than going to Washington to be reallocated.

This provision means that Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake will be able to retain 50% of the funds generated from electricity sales at the Coso Geothermal Facility on the base.  NAWS China Lake can use these funds for installation-related energy or water security initiatives.

According to the Department of Defense, $15 million is generated annually at the Coso Geothermal Facility on NAWS China Lake.

McCarthy Press Release July 27, 2018

SEC. 313. USE OF PROCEEDS FROM SALES OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY DERIVED FROM GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES FOR PROJECTS AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS WHERE RESOURCES ARE LOCATED.
Subsection (b) of section 2916 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘Proceeds’ and inserting ‘Except as provided in paragraph (3), proceeds’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(3) In the case of proceeds from a sale of electrical energy generated from any geothermal energy resource—
‘(A) 50 percent shall be credited to the appropriation account described in paragraph (1); and
‘(B) 50 percent shall be deposited in a special account in the Treasury established by the Secretary concerned which shall be available, for military construction projects described in paragraph (2) or for installation energy or water security projects directly coordinated with local area energy or groundwater governing authorities, for the military installation in which the geothermal energy resource is located.’.

PUBL232.PS (congress.gov) PUBLIC LAW 115–232—AUG. 13, 2018 132 STAT. 1711

October 14, 2018 House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s family benefited from U.S. program for minorities based on disputed ancestry

October 15, 2018 Vortex Construction: LA Times story about heritage, business based on ‘political motivation’. McCarthy office slams LA Times investigation into story of brother-in-law’s business. (kget.com by Jose Franco)

December 11 2018 McCarthy: More Local Priorities Included in House-Passed Defense Bill: NDAA FY19 (McCarthy Press Release)

On July 26, 2018, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act with Congressman Kevin McCarthy’s support by a vote of 359 to 54. 

Section 313 of the Conference Report allows 50% of the funds generated from geothermal resources on a military base to remain at that base for infrastructure improvements rather than going to Washington to be reallocated.

This provision means that Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake will be able to retain 50% of the funds generated from electricity sales at the Coso Geothermal Facility on the base.  NAWS China Lake can use these funds for installation-related energy or water security initiatives.

According to the Department of Defense, $15 million is generated annually at the Coso Geothermal Facility on NAWS China Lake.

September 29 2021 McCarthy secures local priorities in NDAA FY22

“Secured provision to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on water resources at military installations in the West. This provision helps military departments make wise decisions to ensure efficient management and storage of water and to model future requirements.”

September 25 2021: Congressman McCarthy sponsored H.R. 4458 perhaps with the intent of the bill to be inserted in the 2013 NDAA but was delayed do to issues such as those stated by Karen Mouritsen, California State Director for the Bureau Of Land Managment.

Congressman McCarthy continued to sponsor H.R. 4458 after the NDAA had been signed by the President in December 2013. The U.S. Navy’s withdrawal status had already been renewed at NAWSCL for 25 years from 2013 thru 2038.

In other words, McCarthy tried but failed to have the Navy’s Status on BLM Public Lands changed to Status Permanently Withdrawn. The Resolution failed to pass in the House.

Notes

California Assembly District 34 (Vince Fong)

Go to Index

City of Ridgecrest Timeline

Go to Index

City of Ridgecrest Wastewater Treatment Facility,

IWVGA Basin “Replenishment Fees” aka “IWVGA Fees” on IWVWD water bills,

Option Agreement to Sell to IWVGA (5 years)

IWV Water Distcrict Letter to Customers explaining IWVGA Fees

“Egregious” Report by City Attorney Keith Lemieux sent to IWV Water District

  • August 12, 2020 Groundwater in the IWV: Just what is in the IWV’s proposed replenishment fee? By Jessica Weston, The Daily Independent, Ridgecrest California (ridgecrestca.com Now 404)
  • September 18, 2020 Council mulls city’s role on IWVGA, changes nothing (ridgecrestca.com Now 404) re: controversial Hayman vote on Replenishment Fee

(Valley resident) Shirley Jorgensen said she took issue with former GA frontman Mick Gleason, who served as Kern County Supervisor for Ridgecrest’s district.

“That man pushed the vote through at a time our community was struggling after the earthquakes and in the pandemic. He came as a military man and used military tactics to get you all to vote for the fee. I think the whole damn thing needs to be redone.

“We have the brightest, most intelligent minds in this community. We’ve got to figure this out and not be reckless. We can’t be hurting the citizens. Figure it out. Put some intelligent minds to it. Do not destroy families and incomes in this community.”

At the hefty price of $2,130 per acre-foot, the latest fee – neither the first or the last of its kind – has driven up costs of organizations like the IWV Water District, Searles Valley Minerals and large agricultural outfits by millions per year. While water district customers are seeing their annual costs increase by hundreds of dollars, commercial users say they are being driven out of business.

July 23, 2021 Water bills spark complaints (The News Review)

See Wastewater Treatment Facility

Go to Index

September 1, 2021 City of Ridgecrest “Egregious” Letter-Report sent to IWV Water District by Keith Lemieux, City Attorney

September 1, 2021 The City of Ridgecrest has indicated an intention to produce approximately 2,000 acre-feet of treated wastewater per year and sold a five year Option giving the IWV Groundwater Authority the option to buy as type-A Imported Water from the yet to be built Wastewater Treatment Facility. (Council Meeting)

City sent a 5 page “manifesto” to the IWV Water District demanding the district borrow $25 million to provide funding for IWVGA “replenishment fees” in order to extend current 5 year plan for replenishment fees in order to finance the 5 year aggregate cost of the fees for a period of 15 years or more. The IWVWD rejected the City’s request and issued a strong rebuke to the City “for a staff report blaming the water district for everything short of the pandemic”. There were many “egregious accusations” by the City regarding the districts adjudication lawsuit.

Notes

Purpose of the Replenishment fee: The groundwater supplies in the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin are the only source of water for the City of Ridgecrest. The Water District was historically charged with not only operating the water system but also with preserving and maintaining the groundwater supply our water future. However, the Water District failed to take the necessary steps to maintain the groundwater supply.

20210901 CITY Staff Report Replenishment Fee Request to IWVWD

September 1, 2021 Indian Wells Valley Water District response by Don Zdeba to City Council

This report is filled with misrepresentations, half-truths and so much more. The most troubling aspect of the staff report is that it is an obvious attempt to sway the public and as noted, is anything but accurate.

20210901 IWVWD Response to CITY Council by Don Zdeba, General Manager

An extension of 25 years was slipped in to the December 23, 2016 NDAA (Sec. 2845) from the previous extension approved by Congress in the 2013 NDAA which was thru year 2038. Therefore, NAWS China Lake’s withdrawal status has been pushed out until the year 2064. (See financing the WTF)

December 23, 2016 NDAA FY17

“The City of Ridgecrest should withdraw it’s vote for the IWV Groundwater Sustainability Plan with reference to U.S. Navy’s claim of federal reserve water rights which will likely be invalidated by a Federal Court in this jusrisdiction. Navy’s claim undermines private property and water rights of citizens in it’s jurisdiction served by Indian Wells Valley Water District.

Plaintiff

September 24, 2021. “Ridgecrest City Councilmember Kyle Blades is employed by the DOD/Navy and as a property owner or potential property owner, is a member of a “special or “protected class” of residents in the City who are DOD employees as well as customers of the Indian Wells Valley Water District.

The “non-DOD residents” in the City of Ridgecrest or the Indian Wells Valley Water District are, as a result of Navy’s assertion of “federal reserve water rights”, being forced to subordinate their property and water rights to employees of the Navy. Therefore, it should be apparent Mr. Blades has a potential for substantial Conflict of Interest in any decisions made by the Ridgecrest City Council. The City of Ridgecrest has been notified of Councilman Blades’ untenable position.”

Plaintiff

Go to Index

Wastewater Treatment Facility

City of Ridgecrest

Go to Index

“The Indian Wells Valley Water District sent a letter to the city of Ridgecrest on May 14 requesting to negotiate for the wastewater generated by the city’s proposed new wastewater treatment facility that has been in the planning stage for several years. A month later, the lack of a response from the city is difficult to understand.”

May 14 2020 Letter from IWVWD to City of Ridgecrest regarding Wastewater Treatment Facility
  • November 19 2020 City of Ridgecrest and IWVGA sign Option Agreement for Treated Wastewater

Go to Index

Location next to restricted-to-public accment Facilityess Golf Course

Go to Index

Go to Index

Arguments

“We are right, the U.S. Navy and SGMA are wrong.”

Go to Index

Your private property and water rights have been undermined and violated by the U.S. Navy (“Navy”).

Navy’s assertion of “federal reserve water rights” (“FRWRs”) during the formation of and allocation of groundwater by the IWVGA’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in the Indian Wells Valley groundwater Basin has no legal precedent and is meaningless. The Navy is asserting a water right that doesn’t exist for military reservations on Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) Public Lands and Navy’s assertion is a question of law, at best.

Mike Sinnott, Trustee of the Pauline B. Sinnott Revocable Family and Lead Plaintiff

The Navy exercised undue influence and subterfuge to surrupticiously introduce their claim of “Federal Reserve Water Rights” on BLM Public Land, Status Withdrawn.

Navy’s assertion is without legal precedent for a temporary military reservation located on Public Land (“Land”) under the oversight of the Bureau of Land Managment and the U.S. Department of Interior.

U.S. Navy’s assertions were accepted without question by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (“IWVGA”) and the Board was advised by legal counsel they could not do so as it was a matter of the Supremacy Clause and that Navy’s FRWRs must be repected in full according to SGMA.

The federal government (DOD by reference) “may participate in the preparation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan or administration of a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan.” This is clearly more than “sitting at the table” when asserting superior water rights claims to legally vested water rights holders.

Plaintiff

The IWVGA has purchased an Option to Buy treated wastewater “wastewater” for a period of five years beginning November 19, 2020 from the City of Ridgecrest “City”. The City hasn’t announced when the wastewater will be produced as the City’s planned construction of a new Wastewater Treatement Facility (“WTF”) has not been announced.

Plaintiff

Potential Class Members are currently paying a “Replenishment Fee” to the IWVGA to buy potable water and/or treated wastewater as “imported water” that hasn’t been purchased, and it’s unknown where it’s coming from or how much it will cost.

The consequential damages resulting from the insertion of the DOD into SGMA 10720.3 for establishing DOD’s capture of and inclusion in federal reserved water rights doctrine are incalculable. In addition, this has resulted in DOD’s power and influence to be exerted in State laws to the extent that the DOD has undermined the private property rights and water rights of all property owners in the State of California. Much of the damage is real and has become more apparent as new information becomes available. Congressional oversight is needed to prevent this from happening again.

For Example 1: Setting the “price” of imported water. Price fixing influenced by DOD’s assertion of frwrs and allocations…

Members of the Class Action will continue to incur real and quantifiable financial damages a result of Navy’s influence on the IWVGA, Navy’s assertion of “federal reserve water rightprs” and IWVGA’s acceptance of Navy’s assertion that as per SGMA, federal reserve water rights “must be respected in full”.

Additional Statements to come. Any information published and statements made herein are subject to change, correction, modification or deletion prior to any legal action taken by the Lead Plaintiff.

Mike Sinnott, Trustee of the Pauline B. Sinnott Revocable Family Trust (Undated pending filing in Federal District Court)

Go to Index

January 1 2015 The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

SGMA Section 10720.3 Applicability of Part and Participation of Other Soverigns

CHAPTER 11. State Intervention Section 10735 (a) and (b)

Go to Index

Effective on January 1, 2015 sgma_20190101.pdf (ca.gov)

10720.3. APPLICABILITY OF PART AND PARTICIPATION OF OTHER SOVEREIGNS

(a) This part applies to all groundwater basins in the state.

(b) To the extent authorized under federal or tribal law, this part applies to an Indian tribe and to the federal government, including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Defense.

SGMA Section 10720.3 Applicability of Part and Participation of Other Soverigns Effective on January 1, 2015 sgma_20190101.pdf (ca.gov)

(c) The federal government or any federally recognized Indian tribe, appreciating the shared interest in assuring the sustainability of groundwater resources, may voluntarily agree to participate in the preparation or administration of a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan under this part through a joint powers authority or other agreement with local agencies in the basin. A participating tribe shall be eligible to participate fully in planning, financing, and management under this part, including eligibility for grants and technical assistance, if any exercise of regulatory authority, enforcement, or imposition and collection of fees is pursuant to the tribe’s independent authority and not pursuant to authority granted to a groundwater sustainability agency under this part.

(d) In an adjudication of rights to the use of groundwater, and in the management of a groundwater basin or subbasin by a groundwater sustainability agency or by the board, federally reserved water rights to groundwater shall be respected in full. In case of conflict between federal and state law in that adjudication or management, federal law shall prevail. The voluntary or involuntary participation of a holder of rights in that adjudication or management shall not subject that holder to state law regarding other proceedings or matters not authorized by federal law. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

CHAPTER 11. State Intervention
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, and related provisions (as chaptered) Page 43
As Effective January 1, 2019

10735. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) “”Condition of long-term overdraft” means the condition of a groundwater basin where the average annual amount of water extracted for a long-term period, generally 10 years or more, exceeds the long term average annual supply of water to the basin, plus any temporary surplus. Overdraft during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a condition of long-term overdraft if extractions and recharge are managed as necessary to ensure that reductions in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in groundwater levels or storage during other periods.


(b) “”Person” means any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust,
corporation, limited liability company, or public agency, including any city, county, city and county,
district, joint powers authority, state, or any agency or department of those entities. “Person” includes,
to the extent authorized by federal or tribal law and subject to the limitations described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 10720.3, the United States, a department, agency or instrumentality of the federal government, an Indian tribe, an authorized Indian tribal organization, or interstate body.

Go to Index

Comments

Section 10720.3 (b) contains an Ambiguous reference in the title of the section. “Other sovereigns” cannot include the DOD, but (b) includes the DOD as the federal government, “including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Defense”. The DOD is not an “Other Sovereign”. The Title of the section includes “Other Sovereigns” meaning Indian tribes or other sovereign nations.

Inserted DOD language “including but not limited to”.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) reference in the Section 10720.3 for “OTHER SOVEREIGNS” is Ambiguous and outside of the intent SGMA.

The DOD certainly knows that “federal reserve water rights” is a doctrine totally unrelated to military reservations. It goes without saying but that’s exactly how Navy got a seat at the table and why it acts like a perpetual Sovereign.

The U.S. Navy isn’t a sovereign Nation and the Section clearly references Indian Reservations, which are Sovereign Nations.

The Navy should withdraw its assertion of “Federal Reserve Water Rights” to the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority in the two Letters sent in 2019 by Capt. Dale and should accept a classification equal to a large pumper of water in the Indian Wells Valley Basin.

The the Navy should not be exempt from “Replenishment Fees” unless prohibited by Federal Law.

September

Section 10720.3 (c) states that the ‘federal government or a federally recognized Indian tribe may voluntarily agree to participate in the preparation or administration of a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan”

Section 10720.3 (c) states that DOD may volunteer to “come to the table” and participate when the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees meet, in addition to participating “in the preparation or administration of a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan

Section 10720.3 (c) states that either the federal government (DOD) or a tribe may volunteer to “be at the table”. Paragraph (d) expressly excludes the federal goverment from “participating fully”, and only a “participating tribe shall be eligible for involvement in the planning, financing and management” of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

Section 10720.3 (d) states that “In an adjudication of rights to the use of groundwater, and in the management of a groundwater basin or subbasin by a groundwater sustainability agency or by the board, federally reserved water rights to groundwater shall be respected in full.”

According to SGMA, Navy’s assertion of federally reserved water rights may not be questioned by the adjudication court or the Groundwater Sustainablility Agencies formed as a result of SGMA.

Plaintiff

This is fundamentally an assertion by Navy of a doctrine that has nothing in common with the doctrine of federal reserve water rights. SGMA and the adjudication court will provide no remedy other than to accept Navy’s assertions.

SGMA invited the U.S. Navy at Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake to do so, no questions asked…

Plaintiff

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was enacted in 2014 and became effective January 1, 2015. The goal of the legislation is to bring groundwater basins that are designated as medium or high priority basins into sustainability—where inflows (recharge) match outflows (pumping) on a long-term basis and groundwater storage is maintained. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act will have lasting implications on water users throughout the State. Downey Brand’s water law practice has created a helpful reference guide for professionals in the water industry—A Compendium of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

https://www.downeybrand.com/Practices/sustainable-groundwater-management-act-sgma/

Basic Concepts of Groundwater Hydrology
THOMAS HARTER is UC Cooperative Extension Hydrogeology Specialist, University of
California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center.

Phase in a more comprehensive groundwater monitoring system to allow the state to
focus funding and technical assistance efforts in the areas of greatest need.


Establish Active Management Areas (a defined geographic area where specific rules are
established to govern the withdrawal and use of groundwater), in circumstances where
groundwater overdraft potential or the extent of pollution problems are the highest.


Bring science and law together to modernize groundwater law to accurately reflect the
physical interconnection of surface water and groundwater.


Consider phasing in statewide groundwater permitting over a multiyear period, based
on data from expanded monitoring requirements, while maintaining local control over
implementation of permitting to the extent possible.

March 10, 2010 Improving Management of the State’s Groundwater Resources, Mac Taylor, Legislative Analyist (Ca State Assembly)

Go to Index

January 1 2020 Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (IWVGA-GSP)

The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Section 5.2.1.1 PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 2020 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

Go to Index

The IWVGA page outlining the GSP Chapters is here: GSP Chapters — Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (iwvga.org)

SECTION 5: PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 2020 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Page 5-5

5.2 PLANNED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
5.2.1 Management Action No. 1: Implement Annual Pumping Allocation Plan, Transient Pool and Fallowing Program
5.2.1.1 Management Action Description

…The Federal entities (NAWS China Lake and BLM) are exempt from these fees through the legal principles of sovereign immunity. The Annual Pumping Allocation program will assign each qualified groundwater pumper, as described in the following, an Annual Pumping Allocation of the safe yield, if any, after consideration of:

1) Federal Reserve Water Rights (FRWR);
2) California water rights;
3) Beneficial use priorities under California Law;
4) Historical groundwater production; and,
5) Municipal requirements for health and safety.

While NAWS China Lake may voluntarily agree to an allocation under the GSP less than its full FRWR, the IWVGA has no legal authority to enforce such an allocation and NAWS China Lake has not provided a final accounting of its FRWR. In recognition of these facts and the acknowledgment of the limits on the IWVGA to regulate the Federal government, any such FRWR allocation shall be directly assigned to the Federal agency and shall not be subject to the requirements of any allocation ordinance, including but not limited to allocation carryovers, borrowing, transfers, reductions and/or variances and fees.

In accordance with SGMA and California Water law, a five-year base period defined as January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014 (“Base Period”) will be used to evaluate groundwater production for all groundwater pumpers, with the exception of NAWS China Lake and de minimis users. An Annual Pumping Allocation, based on California water rights law and historical pumping during the Base Period, will be assigned to groundwater pumpers. The Annual Pumping Allocations will be regularly reevaluated to ensure sustainability.

Go to Index

  • 2013 to 2015

April 29, 2014 Bureau of Land Management Statement on H.R. 4458 (McCarthy)

“Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake Security Act”

A BILL To make permanent the withdrawal and reservation of public land previously withdrawn and reserved to support the operations of Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and to provide for the withdrawal and reservation of additional public land.

HR 4458 text (PDF) E:\BILLS\H4458.IH (house.gov)

Go to Index

  • 2016

March 16 2016 Formation of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency: “The Navy intends to be at the table”

March 16 2016 IWVGA Meeting Minutes Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin GSA-Eligible Agencies Group

Go to Index

  • U.S. Navy intends to be at the table

Navy Representatives:

  • Lieutenant Foley (first name?)
  • Mike Stoner, title?
  • Tim Fox, Community Plans & Liaison Officer
  • Katherine Ostapak, Counsel
  • Marykay Faryan, Counsel

Meeting Minutes:

  • Pg. 5/7 Where to go from here?
     City – suggests attorneys get together to try to finalize JPA including initial
    finance plan
     Inyo and San Bernardino concur
    Navy and BLM will stay in touch but not weigh in on financials since they don’t
    have a stake in the finances
    (See 4/15/2016 Meeting Summary below)
     Kern County will coordinate the work to have the attorneys get together to
    finalize the JPA
     Re – In kind contributions – City looking into providing office space

  • Pg. 6/7 Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin
    GSA-Eligible Agencies Group
  • Navy intends to be at the table – also looking at other federal funding
    possibilities – authorities

“Navy and BLM will stay in touch but not weigh in on financials since they don’thave a stake in the finances”

See April 15,2016 IWVGA Meeting Summary
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Robert Pawalek, Chief of Resources
U.S. Navy Commander Jared Markley, Environmental Counsel

Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin GSA-Eligible Agencies Group Meeting Summary Notes 4/15/16: Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGMA) (squarespace.com)

Go to Index

  • 2017

July 26 2017 Statement by the Department of the Interior re: S. 1230 Water Rights Protection Act (Sponsor Barrasso WY)

S.1230 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): Water Rights Protection Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Statement for the Record
U.S. Department of the Interior
Before the Public Lands, Forests and Mining Subcommittee
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate

S. 1230, the Water Rights Protection Act of 2017


Broadly speaking, the bill re-enforces the state’s primary authority over water allocation, in
particular as it relates to establishing and recognizing rights to use water. The federal
government owns a wide variety of water rights, whether obtained under state law or through
federal reservation, and has a wide variety of responsibilities for managing those water sources,
such as allocating the waters of the Colorado River through the Boulder Canyon Project Act or
utilizing unreserved waters for federal purposes or in the aid of navigation. At the same time, the
Department recognizes the goals of the bill to prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture from conditioning any permit, approval, license, lease, allotment, easement, right-ofway, or other land use or occupancy agreement (hereinafter “permit”) on the transfer of a private
party’s state water right to the United States. S. 1230 would also prohibit the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture from requiring any water user to apply for or acquire water rights in the
name of the United States under state law as a condition of the issuance, renewal, amendment, or
extension of any permit for the use of public lands. Both provisions, included in Section 3 of the
bill, aim to prevent the federal government from acquiring a water right under state law for
which it would otherwise have to acquire for itself.

We particularly appreciate the recognition of the unique role of federally reserved Indian water rights, which will allow the Department to continue pursuing the settlement of Indian water rights disputes in order to break down barriers to social and economic programs for Tribes and help create conditions that improve water resources management by providing certainty as to the rights of all water users who are parties to the dispute.

Conclusion
The Department recognizes the interest in re-enforcing the state’s authority over water
allocation. The Department also recognizes that the federal government retains the right and
obligation to manage federal lands under the Constitution. This right and obligation includes the
authority to both reserve water rights and mitigate against the impacts of the exercise of privately
held water rights on public lands.
Congress, on the other hand, is charged with directing the
Executive Branch’s implementation of those rights and obligations. As such, we look forward to
working with you on this bill to affirm the Department’s commitment to private water rights,
while maintaining our responsibility to manage public lands for the benefit of all Americans.

Go to Index

Notes:

See Section 3, Treatment of Water Rights

See Section 4, Policy Development:

The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture:

  • (2) shall not—
  • (A) adversely affect
    • (i) the authority of a State in—
    • (I) permitting the beneficial use of water; or
    • (II) adjudicating water rights;
    • (ii) any definition established by a State with respect to the term beneficial use”, “priority of water rights”, or “terms of use”; or
    • (iii) any other right or obligation of a State established under State law; or
  • (B) assert any connection between surface and groundwater that is inconsistent with such a connection recognized by State water laws.

Go to Index

  • 2018

2018 Timeline (#2018)

IWV Groundwater Authority Meeting Minutes, Videos, Documents & Notes

INDIAN WELLS VALLEY GROUNDWATER MODEL (Desert Research Institute)

November 15, 2018 IWVGA Board Meeting

Go to Index

See Navy 11072018

Go to Index

  • 2019

Navy’s first assertion of “federal reserve water rights”

Go to Index

  • February 20 2019 U.S. Navy makes the first assertion of “Federal Reserve Water Rights (FRWR) dating back in time to when the base was first established in 1943″ in Item 6 (Below):

“Item 6. The Navy appreciates that IWVGWA recognizes the unique position of NAWSCL’s Federal Reserve Water Rights (FRWR) dating back in time to when the base was established in 1943. The SGMA statute itself recognizes that FRWRs shall be respected in full, and in the case of any conflict, federal law will prevail. CA Water Code Section 10720.3(d). IWVGWA has also recognized the fact that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity subjecting the Navy to GW regulation, pumping limitations, or fee assessment. Despite these unique federal legal limitations, NAWSCL intends to continue to be a good neighbor and work cooperatively with the IWVGWA.”

Capt. Paul Dale, U.S. Navy letter to IWVGA

See NAVY 02192020

IWVGA Board Meeting
March 21, 2019
Navy 2/3 & 3/3
Ralph Lachenmaier asks John Kersey, U.S. Navy Representative, questions regarding the letter
submitted by the Navy at the February IWVGA Board Meeting.

Go to Index

May 2019 Historical Use Statement by Matthew L. Boggs

Go to Index

“The U.S. Navy submitted two Letters to the IWVGA that are on the Record. Just two paragraphs of text were used to implement the Navy’s surreptitious strategy of asserting “federal reserve water rights” into a SGMA adjudication court case at the state level.”

Plaintiff
  • June 17, 2019 First Letter from Capt. Dale to IWVGA, asserting “Navy’s Federal Reserve Water Right (FRWR)”, May 2019 Historical Use Statement (below)
  • June 20, 2019 IWVGA Approved Meeting Minutes CLOSING COMMENTS (Item 13 on the Agenda) accepted with no comment.
  • June 20, 2019 Commander Peter Benson provides a letter to the Board regarding the Navy’s personnel and historic water use, which was previously requested by the Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee. The letter and supporting document are available online.

“In November 2018, the Navy provided a figure of 2,041 acre-feet per year as the amount of water the installation could agree to use under a GSP. Be advised, however, that the Navy’s Federal Reserve Water Right (FRWR) is not limited to 2,041 acre-feet per year. The Navy’s FRWR dates back to the establishment of the base in 1943, and as you are well aware, SGMA does not impact FRWRs. The Navy’s actual FRWR would likely be established through litigation, which the Navy hopes to avoid by having all pumpers in the Basin agree to an allocated amount.”

Capt. Dale, U.S.Navy letter to IWVGA

Go to Index

See NAVY 06172019

Other dates and news of note:

Go to Index

The IWV Groundwater Authority allocated 7,650 acre-feet per year to the Navy, “for it and its employees”

Go to Index

U.S. NAVY (NAWSCL) Asserts Federal Reserve Water Rights in Letters to IWVGA Including the May 2017 Navy Demographics and Water Requirements Report. (Roadrunner395.com)

In 2020, the IWVGA allocated 7,650 acre-feet of water pumping rights to Navy and its “civilian, contractor and dependents” who live off base and are either renters, private property owners with water rights via wells, private property owners who live within the IWV Water District including those living in City of Ridgecrest.

  • Historic Water Use in the Indian Wells Valley (NAWSCL) (Number of pages: 2)
  • Includes “Navy Demographics and Water Requirements” at NAWS China Lake, by Matthew L. Boggs, Navair Ranges, May 2019 (Number of pages: 28)

In 2017, the Navy reported 538 personnel designated by the Defense Manpower Data Reporting System

538 Military Per DMDCRS “Active Duty Family Sponsors & Eligible Dependents Report by Base”. (Verify 60/40 on base/off base)

4785 Civilian (off-base)

1879 Contractor (off-base)

3500 Dependent (off-base)

10,859 Total

See Appendix A-5 China Lake Staffing Data on Page 23.

September 24, 2021. City of Ridgecrest Council member Kyle Blades is employed by the DOD/Navy and as a property owner or potential property owner, is a member of a “special or “protected class” of residents in the City who are DOD employees as well as customers of the Indian Wells Valley Water District.

Plaintiff

September 24, 2021 “Non-DOD residents” in the City of Ridgecrest or the Indian Wells Valley Water District are, as a result of Navy’s assertion of “federal reserve water rights”, being forced to subordinate their property and water rights to employees of the Navy. Therefore, it should be apparent Mr. Blades has a potential for substantial Conflict of Interest in any decisions made by the Ridgecrest City Council. The City of Ridgecrest has been notified of Councilman Blades untenable position.

Plaintiff

Go to Index

  • 2020

IWVGA Timeline (2020)

IWV Groundwater Authority Meeting Minutes, Videos, Documents & Notes

July 16 2020 IWVGA Public Comments #GA20200716

July 16 2020 IWVGA Meeting Package #GA20200716

Go to Index

2020 Timeline IWVGA Public Meetings

Approved Meeting Minutes Meeting Videos

Commander Benson (6/2020 and 7/2020)

Go to Index

  • June 20, 2020. CLOSING COMMENTS Agenda Item 13, Commander Benson (3:45:45) “I have a letter here from the installation Commanding Officer (Capt. Paul Dale) promulgating the report that includes that information*, it sends you our demographic on well pumping here. I’d just like to point out we are providing this to ya’all in your planning purposes for the GSP but it doesn’t necessarily constitute our Federal Reserve Water Right, I’ll provide that to the Staff at the end of the meeting” *(“requested by the PAC, the TAC and the Board…”)
  • November 19, 2020 City of Ridgecrest and IWVGA signed Option Agreement for Treated Wastewater from yet-to-be built Wastewater Treatment Facility – Five Year Term. (See Item 1.6 Pricing of Available Recycled Water to sell to IWVGA)

Go to Index

June 18 2020 Meeting Minutes

Go to Index

Notes:

June 18 2020

  • Item 10. Adoption of Report on IWV Groundwater Basin’s Sustainable Yield of 7,650 acre-feet
    Hearing for July set.
    Comment Mike Sinnott
  • Item 11. Adoption of a Basin Replenishment Fee, Mailing Notices. Hearing for August set.
    Comment Mike Sinnott
  • Supervisor Gleason, Chair
  • Complaints that Report was only available 24 hours before meeting
  • 1:48:10 Derek Hoffman re Disparaging comments. Where is the legal authority in the report that authorizes the carryover component.
  • 1:49:10 Phil Hall cites Supremecy Clause. Navy letter express claim includes workforce and dependents. GA has no legal authority to call Navy’s assertion of frwr into question.
  • 1:51:10 Searles Valley Minerals letter read into record. Staff Report lists four basis for conclusions
  • Navy not subject to cost
  • continue here
  • 2:28:30 Searles Valley Minerals Comment Letter – Replenishment Fee
  • 2:35:00 Derek Hoffman, counsel for Meadowbrook re frwr agencies getting “carryover” who decided and based on what criteria were the carryover items on page 2 of the staff report. Where is it stated in the report? How did 100% of kern county/city of ridgecrest “support” the navy workforce.
  • 2:30:10 Phil Hall: The Navy sent us a letter saying frwr is for its workforce on and off station.
  • 2:39:30 Phil Hall: We are doing what the Navy has told us to do. If Navy wants to send its unused allocation to a farmer then they can do that. They said the “workforce” so we are stuck with the workforce.

Go to Index

June 18 2020 Mojave Pistachios letter to IWVGA: Reporting Policy for Extraction Wells and Extraction Fee, reports on Sustainable Yield, Replenishment Fee, Transient Pool and Fallowing Pool

Go to Index

See MP 06182018

2021 Mojave Pistachios: Public statement describing “Navy’s hubris”

May 11 2021: There are several ironies to this situation. The whole plan to get industry and Ag out of IWV was conceived prior to the creation of the GA by former Kern County Supervisor Mick Gleason. Kern County taxpayers funded legal support to the GA from County Counsel Phil Hall. As I believe you are aware, the extreme irony is that in the SSJV, Kern County completely opted out of involvement in all SGMA issues and even asked to be fully defended and indemnified by the Kern Groundwater Authority. At the exact same time, Kern County provided the personnel and financial support that left the IWV in this preposterous situation. To those interested in water in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV) and SGMA Issues (mojavepistachios.com)

Rod Stiefvater, Mojave Pistachios, May 11 2021

September 8 2021: “The Authority relied on an untested and legally dubious interpretation of the Navy’s Federal Reserve Right to extend the Navy’s claim to water off the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station base in a move so full of hubris the Navy Commander was forced to disavow the legal maneuvering of the Authority. Using the cover provided by the Navy’s Federal Reserve Right, the Authority then proceeded to declare winners and losers through the implementation of water allocations and imposition of the Replenishment Fee on select parties. This is the largest of such fees in the state and exponentially higher than other fees passed in the Central Valley portion of Kern County.” – Mojave Pistachios

Mojave Pistachios, Nugent Farms

The result of Navy’s assertion and the subsequent decisions made by the GA to approve the GSP have entirely corrupted the allocations for pumpers in the IWV, and have resulted in the GA’s allocation of 7,650 acre-feet per year to Navy when they currently pump less than 2,000 acre-feet of water from the Shared Basin of the Indian Wells Valley. It’s a “Shared Basin” because well over half of the basin is on “Navy Land”.

Plaintiff

The U.S. Navy worked in concert with certain elected officials including Congressman Kevin McCarthy (AZ), former Kern County Supervisor Mick Gleason, former Mayor Peggy Breeden of the City of Ridgecrest, attorneys Phil Hall representing Kern County and the IWVGA Board and Keith Lemieux representing the City of Ridgecrest. They implemented a strategy to control the outcome of the allocations of groundwater pumping and Replenishment Fees required by the Groundwater Sustainability Plan which was approved by the IWVGA in a vote of 4 “aye” and 1 “no”, the sole dissenter being the Indian Wells Valley Water District.

Plaintiff

The Navy exercised undue influence and subterfuge to surrupticiously introduce their claim of “Federal Reserve Water Rights” on BLM Public Land, Status Withdrawn.

Plaintiff

See MP 01082020

“Navy’s assertion of reserve water rights has broad implications enabling the federal government to subvert the fundamental rights of private property owners in a shared groundwater basin such as the Indian Wells Valley. The case law established by Navy’s assertion will be used by any military reservation on BLM Public Lands in order to claim superior water rights using the cover of “federal reserve water rights”.

“The IWVWD has filed for adjudication in State Court. The Navy’s assertion of superior-to-best-use water rights allocations as well as the allocation to the Navy for potential future needs is wholly unjustified.”

Plaintiff

Go to Index

January 8 2020 Letter from Attorneys representing Searles Valley Minerals to Don Zdeba, IWVGA Acting General Manager (IWVWD)

Go to Index

  • 2021

2021 Timeline

IWV Groundwater Authority Meeting Minutes, Videos, Documents & Notes

October 13 2021 IWVGA Meeting Package Pages 82-85

Capitol Core Project Update Memorandum for September Activities

Tertiary Treatment Facility/Water Recycling Facility

A $9.1 million to $11.8 million funding request was made to the SWRCB under the “wastewater treatment program.” For the same reasons as described above, the funding request was denied and redirected to the “water recycling program” for a combined request. Capitol Core has been directed to program manager, Sandeep “Sunny” Kals for discussion. After our discussions with Sunny, he determined that our project is eligible for consideration under his program.

Proposed Implementation Guidelines for the “water recycling program” establish a ceiling of $8 million in direct award for construction activities and limited planning activities to a $250,000 direct award for “feasibility studies” only. This is far below the $4 million to $6 million request for planning of the advanced treatment portions of the water recycling plant and the $9.1 million to $11 million request for the planning and construction activities for the Tertiary Treatment Facility. In addition, both the staff from Assembly Member Fong’s and Senator Grove’s offices have expressed concern over the feasibility of funding for the water recycling facility. We are working through those concerns. We have revised and combined the funding request and continue to work with our legislative delegation and SWRCB on these issues.

NDAA

The Association of Defense Communities alerted Capitol Core about an amendment to the House National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which sunsets the Intergovernmental Support Agreement program (aka, IGSA or DCS-G9 Program). This program allows local governments/agencies to enter into agreements to partner to provide broadly defined infrastructure so that military personnel may fulfill the installation’s mission status. Capitol Core urges both the Authority and the City of Ridgecrest to Support ADC’s efforts to amend this language, as the currently-written language removes a current and future potential contracting/agreement tool as well as harms the potential for public-public-private partnership arrangements with the Navy. As the Authority has stated, NAWSCL and the civilian communities are inextricably linked together. The vast majority of personnel and their families live, shop, work, play and go to school in town. The military depends on our surrounding communities to teach our children, protect our loved ones and provide infrastructure so that the personnel may fulfill their duties on the installation. Partnerships directly support Navy families through the creation of new jobs for spouses, increased educational programs that the children of Navy families can benefit from, and increased access to installation services. These services enhance the quality of life for the broader community, which, in turn supports Navy families that live off-installation. Generally, partnerships focused on training opportunities, children and youth services, spousal employment, and other Morale, Welfare and Recreation requirements benefit both military and community families. However, other partnerships focused on operational efficiencies also provide significant benefits to all families in the Navy and the local community. In addition, members of multiple branches of the Department of Defense at the Pentagon level have expressed their concerns about the proposed language. The House version of the NDAA (HR 4350) passed with this language in it. The Senate version (S.2792) has not yet been passed, but the current draft has similar language in it. We are working with ADC to amend the Senate version of the bill so that it will have different language than the House bill. This will allow the language to be brought up in Conference Committee to reconcile the differences in language between the two bills.
Liaison with U.S. Navy


On September 27th, Capitol Core along with Ridgecrest City Manager Ron Strand and China Lake Alliance Executive Director Dave Janiec met with Paula Monachelli, Director of Basing (under the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for EI & E). John Kersey, the Planning Liaison Officer for NAWS China Lake was also in attendance. We had a productive discussion with Paula and John. Paula expressed concerns about the ongoing adjudication that the Basin is going through, but said that she and the Navy are willing to look for ways to continue the dialogue surrounding the water and wastewater infrastructure needs of the basin to support both the mission at personnel at China Lake.


Defense Communities Infrastructure Program


The Association of Defense Communities (ADC) has provided authorizing amendments to make the Defense Communities Infrastructure Program (DCIP) a more permanent program. Contained within the amendments is language that would allow projects located on leased military land to be eligible for the program. This would make the City of Ridgecrest’s wastewater treatment plant eligible for DCIP funding. The amendments would be offered to the NDAA on the Senate floor and would be a conference committee item, as similar language currently does not appear in the House-version of the NDAA. Capitol Core strongly urges the Authority and the City of Ridgecrest to support these amendments to the DCIP.

References: Statutes, Regulations and Case Law

Coordination Proceeding Special Title
(Rule 1550(b))
ANTELOPE VALLEY
GROUNDWATER CASES

5.1.4 Federal Reserved Water Right. The United States has a right to Produce 7,600 acre-feet per Year from the Native Safe Yield as a Federal Reserved Water Right for use for military purposes at Edwards Air Force Base and Air Force Plant 42. See Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976); United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 700 (1978). Maps of the boundaries of Edwards Air Force Base and Plant 42 are attached hereto as Exhibits 6 and 7. The United States may Produce any or all of this water at any time for uses consistent with the purposes of its Federal Reserved Water Right. Water uses at Edwards Air Force Base and Plant 42 as of the date of this Judgment are consistent with the military purposes of the facilities. The Federal Reserved Water Right to Produce 7,600 acre-feet per Year is not subject to Rampdown or any reduction including Pro-Rata Reduction due to Overdraft.


5.1.4.1 In the event the United States does not Produce its entire 7,600 acre-feet in any given Year, the unused amount in any Year will be allocated to the Non-Overlying Production Rights holders, except for Boron Community Services District and West Valley County Water District, in the following Year, in proportion to Production Rights set forth in Exhibit 3. This Production of unused Federal Reserved Water Right Production does not increase any Non-Overlying Production Right holder’s decreed Non-Overlying Production Right amount or percentage, and does not affect the United States’ ability to fully Produce its Federal Reserved Water Right as provided in Paragraph 5.1.4 in any subsequent Year. Upon entry of a judgment confirming its Federal Reserved Water Rights consistent with this Judgment, the United States waives any rights under State law to a correlative share of the Groundwater in the Basin underlying Edwards Air Force Base and Air Force Plant 42.

5.1.4.2 The United States is not precluded from acquiring State law based Production Rights in excess of its Federal Reserved Water Right through the acquisition of Production Rights in the Basin.

http://avgroundwater.com/WillisDocs/ProposedJudgmentandPhysicalSolution.pdf

Department of Justice Website:

THE MCCARRAN AMENDMENT

NRS | Federal Lands | Water Rights Reclamation

The modern era of western water rights litigation began with the enactment of the McCarran Amendment in 1952.  See 66 Stat. 560 (1952), codified at 43 U.S.C. § 666.  Prior to enactment of this legislation, federal water rights could only be adjudicated in actions filed (or not opposed) by the United States because there was otherwise no waiver of sovereign immunity providing for the involuntary joinder of the United States to water rights adjudications.

Although the United States had voluntarily sought the adjudication of its water rights in a limited number of early cases – for instance, the Orr Ditch litigation initiated by the United States in federal court in 1913 to adjudicate water rights to the Truckee River in California for the Newlands Reclamation Project and the Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation – such cases were the exception.  As early as 1910, shortly after the establishment of the Public Lands Division, the Attorney General, reported that, without its voluntary appearance, the United States could not be bound by a water rights adjudication in Idaho in which a private corporation sought to join sixteen hundred settlers under the Minidoka Project, certain engineers of the Reclamation Service, and the Secretary of the Interior as parties defendant.

By 1926, federal participation in such suits had become somewhat more widespread, with the United States filing or consenting to joinder in approximately thirty adjudications scattered throughout the West – often for the purpose of seeking a determination of the water rights held under state law for large irrigation or Indian reclamation projects, such as the Gila River Project in Arizona and the Grand Valley Project in western Colorado.  However, there remained an untold number of stream systems in which claimants were unable to obtain a determination of the status of their claimed water rights relative to the often sizable, potential federal claims, including particularly federal reserved rights claims. 

This situation changed with the enactment of the McCarran Amendment in 1952, which waived federal sovereign immunity for the joinder of the United States as a defendant in general stream adjudications.  Over the next several decades, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of opinions that clarified the scope of the waiver and the procedural requirements that apply to such proceedings.  For instance, the Supreme Court in such cases as Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 618-19 (1963), and Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), ruled that the McCarran Amendment only provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for purposes of joinder to comprehensive, general stream adjudications in which the rights of all competing claimants are adjudicated.  The waiver does not subject the United States to private suits to decide priorities between the United States and a particular claimant.  

The Court in Colorado River District also recognized that, although state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the comprehensive adjudication of water rights, the federal courts may, in appropriate circumstances, abstain from exercising their jurisdiction where comprehensive state proceedings addressing the same claims are already underway. 

Finally, the Court in United States v. District Court in and for Eagle County, 401 U.S. 520 (1971), ruled that the waiver of sovereign immunity under McCarran includes a waiver for the adjudication of federal reserved water rights.  This ruling opened the door to much litigation over the existence and quantity of federal reserved water rights held for national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other federally reserved lands.

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/mccarran-amendment

Coso Petroglyphs (NAWSCL)

The largest Collection of Petroglyphs in the Northern Hemisphere located at NAWSCL in Coso Range

Coso Rock Art District is a rock art site containing over 100,000 Petroglyphs by Paleo-Indians and/or Native Americans. The district is located near the towns of China Lake and Ridgecrest, California. Big and Little Petroglyph Canyons were declared a National Historic Landmark in 1964.

Coso Rock Art District – Wikipedia
Coso Range map with NAWSCL border. Maturango Museum
050520-N-4928M-001 (May 20, 2005) – More than 250,000 pre-historic rock art drawings can found at the Coso Rock Art National Historic Landmark located on 36,000 acres at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Calif. The Navy held a dedication ceremony May 20 to recognize the Landmark and the many partnerships between the Navy, other government agencies and the civilian community who helped preserve, protect and provide access to the site. U.S. Navy photograph by JOCS(SW/AW) Jon E. McMillan.

Go to Index

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Congressman McCarthy’s legislation is that it would have given U.S. Navy full, perpetual control over the Coso Range Canyons, which “contain the highest concentration of rock art in the Northern Hemisphere… Declared a National Historic Landmark in 1964, the rock art in Little Petroglyph Canyon provides fascinating insights into the cultural heritage and knowledge of the desert’s past… Little Petroglyph Canyon contains 20,000 documented images, which surpasses in number most other collections.”: Petroglyphs (navy.mil)

Plaintiff

This Land likely also includes Sacred Burial Grounds: Recognition of Native American sacred sites in the United States – Wikipedia

Plaintiff

Go to Index

June 2017 Berkeley Law, Trading Sustainably

June 2017, Trading Sustainably: Critical Considerations for Local Groundwater Markets Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Berkeley Law)

Trading Sustainably: CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOCAL GROUNDWATER MARKETS UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (PDF)


Nell Green Nylen, Michael Kiparsky, Kelly Archer, Kurt Schnier, and Holly Doremus


Wheeler Water Institute
Center for Law, Energy & the Environment
UC Berkeley School of Law

Go to Index

IWVGAClassAction@roadrunner395.com

3 Pingbacks

Comments are closed.