July 1st, 2026

Indian Wells Valley, California

The experts have completed their testimony. Over the next six weeks, the attorneys will meet and discuss the appointment of a Special Master and the names they will submit to Judge Claster. In addition, the attorneys will file their closing briefs by August 17th.

On Monday, June 29th, the GA Attorneys finished questioning their expert witness Dr. Sean McKenna and the Water District attorneys cross examined him. Judge Claster will appoint a Special Master per Code Section 845: California Code of Civil Procedure section 845 – Appointment of a Special Master

After today, this post may be updated with any new information or corrections.

Bookmark https://Roadrunner395.com for future Indian Wells Valley groundwater news and subscribe to our Free Email List so you can stay informed.

To join the court in session via Zoom:

https://occourtsapp.occourts.org/aci/checkin-results?dept=CX101

Publisher’s Note: These Updates will be provided throughout the trial, which will conclude next week. The attorneys for both sides will file closing briefs, and Judge Claster will issue a decision between 30 to 60 days thereafter. His decision is expected by the end of July or early September. These are notes without benefit of transcripts and taken during the trial or based on memory. They may be edited for accuracy or corrections as needed. Emphasis is added by the note-taker, me.

Publisher’s Note June 17, 2026: WOW! What a day on Tuesday. The expert witnesses for the IWV Water District are top-tier professionals in their class. If you ever want to go to college and study hydrogeology and groundwater modeling, this course, the “Phase 2 Trial in the IWV”, would be a mandatory post-graduate deep dive into everything hydrogeological. We hope that someone from DWR is watching, especially after the GA’s “water manager” and author of the GSP, Steve Johnson, CEO of Stetson Engineers, reluctantly gave his testimony.

Publisher’s Note June 22, 2026: (Monday of week 3) It was very difficult to follow Attorney Kyle Brochard’s cross examination of Eddy Teasdale. Brochard attempted to impeach Teasdale’s expert testimony on a number of calculation issues, including the polygons and specific yield calculations. The Water District/TWG rested after Teasdale’s testimony with no redirect questions. Dr. Kincaid’s early testimony indicates that he won’t be much help for the GA’s defense.

Publisher’s Note June 24th, 2026: Yesterday, Dr. Todd Kincaid was on the stand under cross-examination by Water District attorney Doug Evertz. The final expert witness for the IWV Groundwater Authority in the Phase 2 trial will be Dr. Sean McKenna for the U.S. and the Navy. Perhaps we will find out what happened to Desert Research Institute’s DRI 2-D model which was commissioned by the U.S. Navy at China Lake. The question we want answered is why did it disappear?

DAY TEN UPDATE Monday June 29th, 2026:

Court changed the schedule and reconvened earlier than 9:00 a.m. Monday, June 29th, 2026, therefore no notes were taken until after 9:00 a.m..

Dr. McKenna is on the stand. Questions regarding “steady state”, Thiesson polygons and comparisons between the GA/DRI 2025 model and the WD/TWG Ramboll model continue. How is the groundwater model superior to Thiesson Polygon? Dr. McKenna makes statements on the inadequacies of the Ramboll model, including the steady state estimate, the number of cells in the model and states the Thiesson Polygon is antiquated. Brown and Caldwell model showed 8,800 and he’s not sure how they came up with 14,300. Flooded cells, faults, specific yields, discharge is limited, all of the pieces don’t really fit together make Dr. McKenna think that the Ramboll model cannot be used to determine Safe Yield. End of questioning by the GA attorneys.

Mr. Evertz says that the parties met and agreed on Exhibits with 3 exceptions.

Cross examination by WD attorney Doug Evertz. Questions regarding Dr. McKenna’s analysis of the Ramboll model. Dr. McKenna misstated and understated the amount of pumping in the valley in 1919, 1000 AFY not zero and not steady state 1920. 10% not 1%. Dr. McKenna discounts all sources of incidental recharge. Water levels in the Meadowbrook are at 150. The actual time that it would take for agricultural recharge would be 15 years, not 122 years. (Ex. 1230). (Ex. 1211) The Danskin report. Questions the DRI/2-D model. Dr. McKenna didn’t have access to the DRI 2-D model which used the McGraw 2016 report to establish the Safe Yield of 7,650 AFY. (Ex. 24 p. 65). Last sentence. The total recharge rate was maintained at 7,650 from McGraw. P. 66 describes the differences between the 2020 and the 2025 DRI model. Both models used the 7,650 figure which was an input in both models correct? Yes. The Safe Yield is calibrated and predetermined by recharge rate? Objection. (Ex. 61 p. 5) Yes, that is Dr. McKenna’s opinion. Dr. McKenna does not know why the 7,650 Safe Yield didn’t change between the original DRI 2-D model and the 2020-2025 GA/DRI models. (Ex. 64) The Anderson report. P. 43 (Ex. 60) Dr. McKenna’s report. P. 23. His calculation using Anderson was 7,650. (Ex. 21 p. 23) McGraw. Errors in McGraw had a wide range of prediction values. Dr. McKenna didn’t use the upper and lower bound. The upper bound would have calculated a much higher Safe Yield. Dr. McKenna isn’t aware whether DBRM method is used in California, is best practice, or approved by DWR. (Same as the Anderson method). McGraw calculated a much higher Safe Yield when assigning an 8″ precipitation. Epstein doesn’t call for exclusion of precipitation. Dr. McKenna excludes precipitation in his analysis. The 30 years prior to 2010 were used to estimate precipitation, using Prism.

Ramboll Model. Dr. McKenna critiques the model primarily on geology of the basin and the specific yield estimates. In the GA/DRI 2025 model the distribution of the specific yield was 0.225 and shifted down to 0.08 for the southern portion of the basin. GA/DRI 2025 and 2020 both calibrated to 7,650. Fault properties, conductivity and specific yield all changed between the 2020 and the 2025 models Correct? Yes. Both models

Attorney Shawn Hood cross examines Dr. McKenna. Refined Owens Valley comparison. (Ex. 62, pg.1) Watershed boundary in Owens. (Ex. 635 p. 47) Danson report. Owens is higher, cooler, receives more precipitation, correct? Yes. (Ex. 1289 p.1) (Ex. 635 pdf. 77). Dr. McKenna’s testimony about Owens and recharge from the mountain front. Why didn’t Dr. McKenna attempt to find the original DRI 2-D model. Dr. McKenna attempted to speak with the person or persons who had the model. He spoke to Greg, Jenny, Steve and one more name at DRI. One of the persons was Richard Jaysoney who did ET calculations (sp?). Did Dr. McKenna as him about the missing model? Unclear. Objections.

Dr. McKenna couldn’t evaluate the DBRM calculations in McGraw that were used in the missing DRI model. (Ex. 21 p. 21). McGraw numbers were the root source of the 7,650. Dr. McKenna accepted at face value the 7,650 figure because he didn’t have access to the original DRI 2-D model. Break.

(Ex. 61) McKenna’s report. Change in storage derived from Thiesson Polygon and is sensitive to specific yield. (p. 100 of transcript). McKenna testified that sensitivity is present on all models that use specific yield. Groundwater models are only as reliable as the assumptions used in the models. McGraw 2015 (Ex. 21 .pdf 78). Zones in layers of model DRI 2-D, 0.25 and .15 were used. (Ex. 990, .pdf 37) 2020 DRI model 0.18 and 0.15. 2025 DRI (Ex. 24 .pdf 76) the SY in Layer 1, quite a bit of difference between McGraw and 2025 which was less than 0.15. Because long term recharge cannot be measured, do you have a level of uncertainty in the 7,650. Yes. Anthropogenic recharge uncertainty comes from where, when and how much. Dr. McKenna ignored Anthropogenic recharge in his analysis. “He saw no evidence”. “Saw no reason to use Anthropogenic recharge.”. Thiesson polygon, is Dr. McKenna aware that the method is used in other groundwater basins in California. No. It’s also used in the GA’s reports correct? Yes. Is approach used by Mr. Teasdale similar to the GA’s use of the Thiesson Polygon method. Yes. He didn’t evaluate the GA’s use of Thiesson Polygon.

Redirect by GA attorney. Has anyone other than people at DRI and the Navy ever seen the original DRI 2-D model? No. Is it Dr. McKenna’s understanding that groundwater pumping began in 1920? “Around that time.” What is your opinion, based on the analysis of the McGraw and DRI 2-D model, is 7,650 accurate? “It’s reasonable’. Dr. McKenna claims the 2025 GA/DRI model is twice as good as the 2020 GA DRI model. Anderson and Epstein studies exclude less that 8” precipitation.

Dr. McKenna is excused. The Groundwater Authority side calls no more witnesses. The Water District calls for no more witness testimony. Judge Claster asks whether he needs to rule on admissibility of any exhibits. Judge would be pleased if the attorneys can settle their differences over lunch. Derek Hoffman believes there should be discussion over judicial notice and they can take that up in the afternoon. Rather than having closing arguments, Judge Claster would like the sides to prepare closing briefs and how long that would take.

Special Master issue: Judge Claster is going to approve a Special Master primarily because of the volume of evidence and exhibits. How to find that person? The parties identified a few possible candidates, and the Water District would object to a list or recommendation from the State. Attorney (?) for the GA would like a list from the State Board as a backstop. The State is a “party” according to Attorney Doug Evertz. Judge Claster questions why object to the State’s list, answer is to avoid the potential for bias according to Evertz. Judge Claster says that a Special Master should have been involved prior to the trial. At this point, the Special Master should have a high level of knowledge in groundwater basins and modeling according to Judge Claster. We’ve had nine experts testify. All of them have good credentials. Judge Claster says he doesn’t feel he has the background to essentially “flip a coin” on the experts. Recess until 1:30.

July 17th Three names each for Special Master to be circulated between the parties. In addition, 3 names to come from the State Water Board.

Friday July 24th Status Conference at 2:30 p.m. re: Selection of Special Master

August 17th Final Briefs to be submitted.

Judge Claster thanks the attorneys and the court is in recess.

DAY NINE UPDATE Wednesday June 24th, 2026:

NOTE: ON MONDAY June 29th, 2026 the Court will be reconvened and will include the discussion of how to find and include a Special Master per Code Section 845: California Code of Civil Procedure section 845 – Appointment of a Special Master. Dr. Sean McKenna will be on the stand Monday and will be cross-examined by the attorneys for the Water District.

(Ex. 80 – Kincaid Report) Dr. Kincaid is on the stand to be questioned by Water District attorney Hoffman (?). (Ex. 611) (Ex. 625). Attorney is specifically establishing Dr. Kincaid’s multiple assumptions, inconsistencies and uncertainties with regards to various prior studies and reports concerning the base period beginning in 1912, whether it was really a “pre-development” period, and also whether or not estimates of recharge and ET in the IWV groundwater basin that were cited in prior studies were reliable or valid. (Ex. 1222) Dutcher and Moyer (sp?) report. 1966 groundwater pumping was 12,400 AFY. Dr. Kincaid agrees that there are “considerable uncertainties” with regards to the reports. Dr. Kincaid is asked whether or not he agrees there are both pros and cons to the Recharge Method and the Change in Storage Method. Dr. Kincaid answers No. Dr. Kincaid says that mountain front recharge can’t be directly measured. He agrees that each component of the Recharge Method has different degrees of uncertainty associated with it. Is it possible that error bars could be illustrated for each component? Dr. Kincaid agrees that error bars could be calculated but he didn’t do the calculations and would need more data. The Storage Method has components that use empirical data, correct? Yes. Thiesson Polygon method doesn’t rely on recharge estimates or anthropogenic recharge data correct? Yes. In the GA model, was specific yield calibrated or data specific? The specific yield was calculated in the “context” of the 7,650 safe yield number. Kunkle and Chase (Ex. 611). Average specific yield (SY) values.

Doug Evertz continues cross examination. (Ex. 80). (Ex. 1027). Graph out of St. Amand report. (Ex. 852). (Ex. 21) (Ex. 65) Epstein report. All 3 authors are associated with DRI correct? Yes. (Ex. 80 pg. 22) Kincaid’s report.

Mr. Dunn on Redirect: (Ex. 1000). Dr. Kincaid was directed by the GA to develop an opinion of safe yield base on previously reported studies. Mountain front recharge was estimated to be in the range of 6,800 to 9,600 (verify) in your analysis correct? Yes. Break. Are they acceptable reasonable ranges? Yes.

Mr. Brochard Redirect: (Ex. 625) Mountain front recharge was “redirected” to include Rose Valley recharge. Bean used the Sierra Granidix which was deemed to be unreliable. Dr. Kincaid has no reason to believe there’s a perched area in the CL playa. Every model is unique. Models are the best way to determine recharge. If they are able to calibrate successfully to determine the safe yield. Seven of Eight models have been used to calibrate to the safe yield. The District’s model failed to calibrate. It failed the test. Models are presentations of data and facts that validate the reasoning behind the scientific studies. Dr. Kincaid determined that the Bean report’s components were reasonable with exception of the Sierra Granidix. Dr. Kincaid sees no evidence that any irrigation return flows are part of the recharge. The GA/GRI model does not include recharge for precipitation on the valley floor. The Ramboll model does not included recharge on the valley floor.

Redirect: Dr. Kincaid reduced the recharge by 15% to account for ET or recharge.

Dr. Sean McKenna on the stand. Senior program developer for DRI. Works with USGS on the Nevada Water Initiative, developing water budget tools. They use the BCM and they’re looking at the ET on desert valley floors. Joined DRI in June of 2020. He has reviewed the work with the NAVY which began in 2013. The concern was declining water levels at that time. Looking for subsidence at the SNORT track. Subsidence is occurring at the SNORT track. Other concern is loss of vegetation and potential dust. In this case, he read both the GA/DRI 2025 model and the Ramboll model. He’s visited the IWV three times. His understanding of safe yield is the annual amount of groundwater that can be pumped out of the basin that doesn’t cause undesirable results. Safe yield cannot be more than recharge. Dr. McKenna gives a short presentation on model development (inaudible). Non-uniqueness: multiple models using multiple inputs that calibrate to the same result.

Inflows to the water budget: Would be reluctant to use anthropogenic sources of recharge in the IWV. Irrigation water would take 120 years to return to the water table. Caliche with low permeability would slow it down further. He would not include leakage from water systems or releases from LA aqueduct for the same reasons as irrigation. He did included percolation from the wastewater treatment plant but characterized as not a factor. (Ex. 64) Anderson paper. Similar basins to IWV. Groundwater in storage is much, much larger than the recharge. (Ex. 65) Epstein report. Dr. McKenna excludes any precipitation less than 8″ per year in recharge calculations. There are no perennial streams in the IWV, unlike the Owens Valley. (Ex. 62). Map of Owens Valley.

Break for lunch until 1:45

NOTE: ON MONDAY June 29th, 2026 the Court will be reconvened and will include the discussion of how to find and include a Special Master per Code Section 845: California Code of Civil Procedure section 845 – Appointment of a Special Master.

Dr. McKenna continues testifying. (Ex. 24) 2025 GA/DRI Model: Recharge calculation. (Ex. 1200, 1202 admissable) All expert reports are coming into evidence with exception of the Parker expert and response reports. (Ex. 62 and 1289 admitted) (Ex. 218 admitted as demonstrative) (Ex. 1283 pending) Dr. McKenna has reviewed the estimates of recharge and believes the estimate of 7,650 AFY in the IWV is “reasonable” estimate of mountain front recharge. How does the 2025 DRI model relate to the estimate of 7,650 AFY? All of the pieces that go into the model are consistent with other studies and reports. “The fit together well”. That recharge rate is very reasonable. On the issue that the GA started with the 7,650 estimate, that approach works with the calibration.

He compared the 2020 GA/DRI model with the 2025 GA/DRI model. The DRI calibration fits well with the statistics. The 2025 model is twice as good, with three times the water level observations. The 2025 version also includes the AEM data. The 2025 DRI model varies in the recharge. Seasonal variations in well data are an example. The 2025 model has an updated USGS fault map. Data that was incorporated came after the earthquakes. (Ex. 29?). Offsets in faults are significant measurements. (Ex. 1269 and 1279 are ruled as demonstrative). Specific Yield (Ex. 24). Map of layer 1 showing SY. GA/DRI 2025 has a range of .01 to .25 (Ex. 97) .24 is the range in Ramboll, .03 is the SY in the GA/DRI model. From 2020 to 2025 the calibration has changed significantly. Steady state was about the same during that period. The 2025 model’s accuracy has increased when the SY has changed and is lower.

Regarding criticisms of the GA/DRI model by Dr. Bedekar: Mountain front recharge in the DRI model is put in layer 1. Less recharge occurs from lower levels. In the Ramboll model mountain front recharge is distributed evenly in layers 1-5 evenly, 5 being deeper. Dr. McKenna believes that’s not what’s happening. Store-ativity is a parameter representing the amount of water that can be taken out of or put into storage in the aquifer. (inaudible) Demonstrative Ex. 219. Layers 2-6 in both models are accurate. (Ex. 63) prepared by Dr. McKenna for deposition. Shows four orders of magnitude in store-atvity from top to bottom using a log 10 scale. There’s a ten-thousand times difference between the high and low layers. In Ramboll model the values are quite high. Specific Storage. The Ramboll model shows extreme values, high in El Paso and Rose Valley. The rest of the model area is quite low. Quong model estimates Specific Storage at varying depths underground. The lowest Specific Storage values in Ramboll are higher than the lowest SS values in the DRI model. Break.

(Ex. 63 demonstrative). Objections continue. Quong model is referenced and Dr. McKenna’s work are all reports incorporating other people’s work, hearsay etc. Objection withdrawn exhibit are his calculations. Recharge is too high in the Quong model. Not in line with what he would expect and don’t coincide with reality. (Ex. 364) HCF report. He reviewed Ex. 97 Parker. The Ramboll model can support a higher recharge and is not supported by the HCF.

Discussion of faults and conductivity of faults. Ramboll doesn’t take into account all of the faults in the basin. (Ex. 97) Discussion of Specific Yield. Dr. McKenna thinks they are too small and not variable enough in the Ramboll model. (Ex. 210?) Map showing the fraction of coarse-grained material ranges from 20% to 90% coarse materials. Dr. Bedekar’s map shows the basin is primarily coarse in Layer One. HGZ 1-3. HGZ 2 is missing. Discussion of Eddy Teasdale’s SY values from the Meadowbrook area.

Hydrolic conductivity is an aquifer property that measures the ease that water can move through the aquifer. It’s important when determining safe yield. It makes more distant water available. Conductivity is higher with higher grain size. Ramboll model Layers 1 and 2 are reasonable. Layers 3 and 4 are on the high side. Layers 5 and 6 are much higher than he would expect.

Water Budget in the Ramboll model. What comes in vs. What goes out. The main source of discharge is pumping. Also ET. The China Lake playa has the highest ET. Dr. McKenna disagrees with Dr. Bedekar that there’s a source of recharge to the playa that’s not accounted for. What is the average annual ET in the DRI model? 4,500 AFY.

(Ex. 1202 Rebuttal report). Natural recharge and discharge from Ramboll. 10,700 recharge and 2,900 ET shows two and a half square miles of “lake” two feet deep after ET based on Ramboll model. The recharge is too high and promoting a safe yield that’s too high. Dr. McKenna would not trust the transient model results. (Ex. 1241) USGS report. Guidelines for developing groundwater flow models. The preferred method is to simulate a period of equilibrium, inflows vs. outflows. 1980 to 1985 was not a representative period with regards to precipitation. Wet period increases the recharge in Ramboll. (Ex. 1202) Steady State period compared to a transient wet period. 10,700 to 18,000 is the increased recharge beginning in 1980. 1980 to 1985 was also the highest pumping period on record. (Ex. 1202 .pdf 45) Steady state period compared to Ramboll produce higher recharge results. Can the Ramboll model produce a reliable Safe Yield estimate of 14,300 AFY? No.

Court in recess until Monday at 9:00 a.m.

From the IWV-TWG trial brief, page 81, we find the following:

Dr. Kincaid is fundamentally no different than Dr. McKenna; his job was likewise to
support the IWVGA’s “black box” 7,650 AFY recharge estimate.

Referring back to the above discussion of Kunkel & Chase (1969), the other “most reliable
estimate” of recharge, according to Dr. Kincaid, is, predictably, McGraw (2016), the origin of the
7,650 AFY value hardwired into his client’s model. McGraw (2016) was among the 10 studies
Dr. Kincaid chose for his calculated average, and Kincaid’s range unsurprisingly brackets 7,650
AFY quite nicely.

Of course, Dr. Kincaid can offer no more substantiation for 7,650 AFY than Dr. McKenna,
because that value was generated by the vanished 2-D DRI Model. As described above, the 2-D
DRI Model not made available to the TWG experts. Drs. Kincaid or McKenna did not review the
2-D DRI Model either. Dr. McKenna has no basis to opine that 7,650 is reliable, because he
doesn’t know how that estimate was generated. (Kincaid Depo., 193:17–196:25 [emphasis
added].) (Pg. 81, TWG Trial Brief)

The following is excerpted from the Groundwater Authority’s trial brief, pages 31-32.

Sean McKenna, testifying for the United States and the Navy, is the Executive
Director of DRI’s Division of Hydrologic Sciences and has nearly 40 years of experience in
groundwater research and modeling. He is expected to opine that 7,650 AFY is a reasonable
estimate of the annual recharge in the Basin, and that the safe yield cannot exceed the
recharge the Basin receives, and would need to be lower if transpiration from natural
vegetation is considered. Dr. McKenna will further opine that the primary source of
recharge in the Basin is mountain front recharge, and that anthropogenic sources––such as

irrigation return flows, leakage from the LA Aqueduct, and leakage from the District’s
distribution system––are not appropriate to consider in this Basin. There is no compelling
evidence of leakage from the LA Aquduct in any volume that would create a difference in
this basin. And, as to return flows, Dr. McKenna is the only expert that has attempted to
calculate how long it would take for irrigation return flows to percolate through the basin to
the water table. Dr. McKenna calculates it would take 122 years or longer. Since neither
agriculture nor the District were present in the Basin 122 years ago, it is not appropriate to
include those amounts in a water budget.

Dr. McKenna is also expected to testify that 2025 GSA/DRI Basin Model reliably
represents the Basin’s hydrogeologic framework, incorporates the best available data,
including airborne electromagnetic surveys, and is well calibrated in both its steady-state
and transient components. In contrast, he is expected to explain that the Ramboll Model
relies on unusually wet years, fails to match observed groundwater conditions, and
incorrectly simulates a large perennial lake near China Lake where none exists. (Pg. 31-32 GA Trial Brief)

DAY EIGHT UPDATE Tuesday June 23rd, 2026:

Dr. Kincaid is back on the stand being questioned by GA attorney Kyle Brochard. Objections by Water District attorney Doug Evertz continue regarding admissibility of evidence and opinions of Dr. Kincaid related to unsupported methods and hearsay related to previous studies or reports by others. Judge Claster allows the testimony with the option of striking later. Dr. Kincaid says the Change in Storage method makes an assumption that the entire basin is available to pumping at the levels where the wells are located. For example, recharge that accrues into the El Paso isn’t taken into consideration in the area where the wells are located. Brochard asks whether Dr. Kincaid feels that 4 assessments conducted by the TWG experts are closely related to each other and not “independent” methods.

Darcy’s law is the equation that’s used to measure groundwater flows. (Ex. 80) How does Darcy’s law relate to attempts to determine safe yield? The flow can be calculated but the basin is complicated.

Model calibration is the process where observed conditions are measured which are then used in the model. Statistics are used when comparing to observed groundwater levels. A test of the reasonableness of the inflows into the basin, and the safe yield.

Steady state is a very important condition to use to equilibrate. At some point the water coming in and the water going out will become equal. If some pumping were to occur during the 1920 period, the basin would have come into equilibrium, and ET would have still occurred as the pumping was not enough to depress water levels to the point of no ET occurring.

Dr. Kincaid describes various steady state analysis and reports created in the past and how they were used in calibration of the model. (Ex. 1000) Brown and Caldwell compared multiple years of studies which are important to establish “reasonableness” and how they align over time. Break.

Dr. Kincaid used the Todd Report for Rose Valley inflows, and McGraw for various inputs. Kunkle and Chase overestimated the ET by over 33%. He was looking for reasonable total average inflow estimates. He chose 1989 as a baseline. He believed that previous estimates of recharge by Kunkle were too high and the recharge of 11,000 was carried through to other studies. Objections by Mr. Evertz, Dr. Kincaid didn’t include higher values from some of the reports and created a new chart after the deposition. The maximums weren’t included in his original analysis but were included in the dot plots. Judge Claster agrees that the plaintiff attorneys weren’t able to depose him about the data that was used for Dr. Kincaid’s report. “Dr. Kincaid systematically” excluded components of the recharge estimate. “Now he’s triple counting the 7,650” and omitting other data. This will be a subject of cross-examination this afternoon.

Mr. Evertz states that this line of expert testimony is fundamentally unfair. Previously Judge Claster wouldn’t allow Dr. Bedekar’s analysis of the reports. Mr. Evertz continues to object to Dr. Kincaid’s opinion regarding the opinion of others and their reports. He’s acting as a surrogate for testimony by others. Judge Claster asks Dr. Kincaid to explain his omissions of data points and why they were omitted. Dr. Kincaid explains that his analysis includes data points that were reasonable and calibrated using previous models. Using statistical analysis, he knows that the points of observed water levels are consistent with the estimates of recharge. Dr. Kincaid uses statistics and graphs, green dots and red dots with dot plots to depict the same data. Objections by Mr. Evertz as to the representation of the same data using aerial circles around wells. The perception of the same data points can be manipulated or aren’t valid representations of the areas used with various graphs.

If estimating safe yield, Dr. Kincaid says that it’s reasonable to use the steady state model to estimate safe yield. Does the model need to be well-calibrated. Yes. Objection. Does the model need to be well-calibrated and be used to estimate safe yield. The estimation of safe yield should not include leakage or releases from the LA aqueduct. Dr. Kincaid reviewed the reports from LADWP that they are addressing leaks and seeking to minimize releases. Break for lunch until 1:45 p.m..

Dr. Kincaid (Ex. 80) testimony continues. Dr. Kincaid believes that Climate Change will result in less snowpack and rainfall in the future. Dr. Kincaid believes that the Thiesson Polygon assumes that the entirety of the basin is available to the wells and that is not true. There are also uncertainties with regards to water level management, and Thiesson makes an assumption or interpolation that the other areas of the basin aren’t measured with well levels.

Cross Examination by Mr. Hood (?). (Ex. 84) The values reported by Parker and Teasdale are the change in water levels. Using a spreadsheet provided by Dr. Kincaid, the reported groundwater levels on the left are Mr. Parkers, the right are the GA’s. (Ex. 9) Mr. Evertz is questioning the cumulative total of changes in water levels over a 10-year (2014-2023) period of approximately 65.4 feet. Divide by 10 would be 6.54 per year. Polygon 1 was used as an example. Dr. Kincaid used the same number across 77 polygons. (Inconsistent with reality of unique polygons and wells or no wells in different areas). (Ex. 1000) Dr. Kincaid was retained by Mr. Brochard’s law firm to provide a “cursory review” of the basin and a preliminary opinion comparing the GA and the Ramboll models. Dr. Kincaid would have liked to study the BCM and other reports before giving an opinion and his deposition. (Ex. 80) His analysis didn’t include any recharge estimates from previous studies. His analysis doesn’t include recharge from wet years therefore the base period used in the models should make no difference whether it’s a wet or dry period. Break.

(Ex. 80) 4.2.2.3 Applications of the storage method will likely overestimate the safe yield. He agrees that high specific yield returns lower safe yield. Dr. Kincaid disagrees with the statement “The basin as a whole may not be in overdraft.” He understands there is only one basin in the IWV. Attorney Evertz is questioning Dr. Kincaid’s “intentional omission” of recharge estimates that were “proven to be incorrect” according to Dr. Kincaid. Mr. Evertz asks, “You intentionally omitted high values, correct?” Dr. Kincaid denies that to be the case. He estimated total recharge to be 10,100. He believes the “open basin” method of determining that recharge from the Sierra Granidix has been invalidated by a previous study. (Publisher’s note: in the Sierra Nevada, groundwater recharge occurs through infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt into fractured bedrock and alluvial deposits.) Dr. Kincaid omitted all sources of Anthropogenic recharge from his estimates. Barren Brock and Martin included recharge from the sewer ponds. Dr. Kincaid used studies that didn’t include recharge from Rose Valley. “Do you agree there’s inflow from Rose Valley?” No, there could be inflows from Rose Valley which are in dispute, and he references the Todd report which used 1,000 AFY. Rose valley is included in the 7,650 safe yield estimates. (Ex. 1027) Aquifer modeling. “Serious doubt in recharge quantities”. Further model development was abandoned. (.pdf pg. 17). Project purpose. Suggestions of recharge up to 30,000 AFY have been estimated. (.pdf pg. 126) “Calculation of a resource life estimates” requires a small range of recharge estimates, i.e. “bookends”. The Watt study was an independent estimate of recharge. Dr. Kincaid (.pdf pg. 82) pulled from the study is 9,900 but couldn’t find it when asked to do so. (Ex. 1027) Gillespie and Tyne. Hydrogeologic analysis. Precipitation (.pdf pg. 5) The total watershed from the Sierra to the Rose Valley area is 9,200 (verify). Also 2,896 from Nine Mile Canyon. Dr. Kincaid’s table omits these values. (.pdf 6) Total inflow estimates are approximately 30,000. “Your very selective with the figures you selected right?” asks Evertz. “I wouldn’t use the word ‘very'”. (Ex. 67) Brown and Caldwell. Course in recess until 9:00 a.m. Wednesday.

Attorneys will meet over lunch tomorrow to settle issues regarding admissibility.

DAY SEVEN UPDATE Monday June 22nd, 2026:

Judge Claster was commenting on appointment of a special master. Need to verify what was said.

Eddy Teasdale is back on the stand this morning and is questioned by Water District attorney Doug Evertz. Comparisons of the Ramboll Model with the GA/DRI 2025 Model follow. The Safe Yield is 14,800 (Verify) using the TWG’s estimate of specific yield and the Brown and Caldwell 2009 specific yield numbers. (Ex. 47) Using the Ramboll 2024 specific yield data, they also used the aerial AEM data to refine the specific yield. Teasdale used data from 15 wells from the Meadowbrook area, using the high specific yield of 15%-25%. Sand Canyon and Rose Valley both are factors in that area. If anywhere in the basin would have a high specific yield, it would be the Meadowbrook area. He’s being conservative by adopting the high specific yield, as it would lower the safe yield.

Water levels, pumping volume, the area of the basin and the specific yield are all measured and are derived from tested data sets. Confidence level of safe yield expressed by Teasdale is high. Kunkle and Chase, Brown and Caldwell and Ramboll models are all similar as to specific yield. The GA/DRI 2020 values for specific yield are not reliable. The GA/DRI average in 2020 is 10% and the average in 2025 is 20%. Over 90% of the basin is tied to a specific yield of greater than 20% in the GA’s models.

(Ex. 31) based on Kunkle and Chase, safe yield was 15,400 to 18,000 AFY. (Ex. 3) Safe yield paper also shows 15,800 to 16,200 AFY using Ramboll and 2024 specific data from Brown & Caldwell. (Ex. 531) 14,200 to 15,100. Trend is 14,100 to 16,000 AFY, not 7,650.

Teasdale’s Rebuttal report addresses criticisms of the Change in Storage method made by the defense. He provides support for the 15,400 AFY estimate. Kincaid/McKenna was based on a recharge-ET approach based on pre-development conditions from over 100 years ago. The Recharge method is more uncertain than the Change in Storage method. The further back in time, the less data is available to be validated. “I don’t see why it’s even relevant” says Teasdale. “Why do we care what happened over 100 years ago”. Pre-development ET and mountain front recharge are reconstructions of historical unknowns. (Ex. 607) Predevelopment ET is not confirmed.

Recharge estimates may miss storm water recharge. The GA didn’t use extreme conditions into the model. If not included, the safe yield is underestimated. McGraw’s water budget doesn’t include anthropogenic sources of recharge. They’re components that aren’t getting incorporated into the safe yield. Kincaid and McKenna criticized the TWG estimates of using “low” specific yields. It’s one of the most sensitive parameters, and Teasdale maintains their specific yield estimates are accurate.

“I’m very confident” that 15,400 is an accurate estimate of the basin’s Safe Yield says Teasdale. Break.

Cross examination by U.S. Attorney Judith Coleman for the defense. Questions regarding ET and GDE (Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems). Teasdale says that Open ET was used to estimate ET on the China Lake playa and 4,500 AFY was estimated to be the total ET on the playa

Cross examination by Kyle Brochard for the defense. Questions regarding the polygons and the specific yield values. Average was used. The GA annual report for 2024 was used with 81 polygons. (Ex. 94) One polygon is called into question by Brochard. A change in water levels in one polygon would result in a loss of 17,000 AFY in the basin’s safe yield calculation.

Objections to Brochard’s line of questions regarding well readings and establishment of trendlines for the Thiesson Polygon are overruled by Judge Claster. If water levels are decreasing, the change in storage will be increasing, correct? Polygon 61 in 2014 and 2015 thru 2022 shows a gain or net positive for the cumulative total. Same for Polygon 64, i.e. showing water levels going up. Break for lunch.

Brochard continues attempts to impeach testimony by Eddy Teasdale. Confusion regarding the water level changes in Meadowbrook wells and the polygons. Polygon 61 shows a loss of 64 acre-feet. Polygon analysis shows a different change in storage which is affected by the average annual changes. (Ex. 9) (Ex. 25) Brochard continues to question the differences in water levels from Teasdale’s expert report. Judge Claster asks how the reports are different for the same year and Teasdale uses approach 2: Specific yield affects the safe yield, and he’s looking at only one polygon. The judge asks why he changed the specific yield for Meadowbrook. (Ex. 929) Estimate of loss in storage. All of these change in storage levels affect the safe yield. Teasdale says that the recharge number is most important. Recharge was calculated using the BCF. The difference between how Ramboll calculates recharge is different from the way the GA model calculates recharge. (Ex. 1037) Criticisms of the TAC process. (Ex. 952) Model TAC ad hoc group meeting with DRI. (Ex. 36) Report out of TAC meeting by Teasdale was positive. Calibration of the GA model would use 4,100 to 7,700 “bookends”. DRI is asked to calibrate the model. Second ad hoc meeting with DRI. The notes by Mr. Parker said that 7,650 would be used as a starting point then calibration would be done. Teasdale states that some of the members disagreed with that single value and it understood that it would be adjusted later. (Ex. 920) Post GSP re: DRI model configuration plan. Teasdale was withdrawn by his client Meadowbrook after the GSP and prior to pending litigation. The TAC had become inactive and ineffective at some point. Questions regarding the selection of the base period and the number of wet or dry years were included as the best available data looking forward. Brochard asks about the 2014-2023 base period used in the Ramboll model. Two of the highest years of runoff occurred during 2017 and 2023. Teasdale maintains that the base period was an accurate representation for use in the Ramboll model. End of cross examination. Break.

No Redirect, Water District/TWG rests.

Todd Kincaid, Ph.D., P.G.
Dr. Todd Kincaid is the president of GeoHydros and has more than 30 years of
professional experience in the field of hydrogeology and modeling. Dr. Kincaid was
retained by the Authority to independently review and assess the GSP’s safe yield
determination. Dr. Kincaid will testify that the Basin’s safe yield is best estimated by using
the Recharge Method––determining the Basin’s long-term average natural recharge and
then accounting for natural outflows. Under that approach, he concludes that safe yield falls
between 6,100 and 8,400 AFY, and that 7,650 AFY is a reasonable estimate. He will further
explain that the 2025 GSA/DRI Model validates his opinion and is a more reliable tool than
the Ramboll Model, as it better simulates known conditions. The Ramboll Model contains
foundational defects, including hundreds of dry and flooded cells––meaning the model is
simulating too much water in some areas, and not enough in others. Dr. Kincaid will testify
that there are more than 800 flooded cells near China Lake, effectively, incorrectly
simulating a large lake where none exists. (P. 30-31 GA Brief)

Retained by defendant’s attorneys to determine the safe yield. (Ex. 1205) Dr. Kincaid is a professional Hydrogeologist in California with 30 years experience. Firm specializes in groundwater modeling. Dr. Kincaid has served as an expert witness four times in person. (Ex. 1000). Review of 2025 GA/DRI Model vs. Ramboll Model. His analysis was at a “Cursory level”. Dr. Kincaid received the input file and output file and has run the district’s model. (Ex. 80, 84). The most reliable method is through the use of steady state pre-pumping conditions and a hydrologic equation using the 1912 base period. The total amount of inflow must be equal to the total amount of outflow. The IWV basin is a closed basin. Without pumping the only loss of groundwater is due to ET. 7,200 – 9,900 AFY is his estimated safe yield. Dr. Kincaid described the general physical structure of the basin and quantifying the ET on the playa. He is relying on many reports including Kunkle and Chase. Objections by the District’s attorneys as to Dr. Kincaid’s testimony, they are simply opinions based on someone else’s opinions and previous reports. Judge Claster is inclined to allow him to answer questions and Attorney Brochard wants all the reports admitted as evidence. Judge Claster also recognizes that it’s one thing to admit expert witness testimony based on hearsay, but he may not allow those reports to be admitted as evidence. Attorney Evertz says this witness is acting a surrogate to others that aren’t here to testify. (Ex. 3) Judge asks about the TWG Safe Yield Report. Earlier reports were used in Appendix A. (Ex. 1000) Kunkle and Chase calculated 11,800 AFY and 15,000 AFY in recharge. Attorney Evertz strenuously objects to use of GIS and unsupported methods to calculate safe yield. Judge Claster asks Dr. Kincaid whether he took data from Kunkle and Chase. “Sort of”. He looked at multiple studies and brought them into GIS to see how they relate to conditions in the basin. He compiled historical estimations and used some statistics to determine the range and calculation of his safe yield after using a reduction of 15%. Objection to undisclosed expert opinion will be a problem tomorrow and court is adjourned. The attorneys will meet tomorrow regarding reports, admissibility and there will be a long discussion on the Special Master issue.

DAY SIX UPDATE Wednesday June 17th, 2026:

Dr. Vivek Bedekar is on the stand this morning following the testimony of Dr. Matthew Tonkin yesterday. The GA’s lead Attorney Kyle Brochard has been putting them to the test on cross-examination. Court will be called into session at 9:00 a.m.

Dr. Bedekar testifies and answers questions by Water District attorney Douglas J. Evertz comparing the IWV TWG Ramboll model with the GA/DRI 2025 model. (Ex. 258, 259, 260, 261). Dr. Bedekar was trying to determine why the GA pushed the specific yield values so high.

Defense experts Dr. Kincaid and Dr. McKenna have brought up the “lake” or flooded cells in the Ramboll model that show an area in the China Lake playa area that is 10 or 20 feet above the land surface. The volume of that water “above” the land surface (represented by cells in the model) and is around 10 acre-feet. It’s of minimal impact and is being used by the defense experts as a “distraction” according to Mr. Evertz. Mr. Brochard objects to the testimony specifically calculating the “flooded cells” to be 10 acre-feet. It is immaterial, according to Dr. Bedekar, who during deposition, testified that the flooded cells, which exist in both models, are insignificant.

(Ex. 268). The GA model needs to be recalibrated if it were to be used for predictive management purposes. It will produce incorrect water levels. Ramboll validates the safe yield estimate by using the actual inflows into the basin. The GA/DRI 2025 model uses the same recharge as the original GA/DRI 2-D model, and so it’s circular modeling based on a fixed safe yield.

The Ramboll model:

• inflows are key to assessing safe yield.
• is based on inflows from physical data and the BCM.
• validates inflows.
• is properly calibrated and suitable for modeling in the next phase.

The GA/DRI 2025 model:

• uses 1920-1926 to calibrate their model.
• is not able to account for intermittent changes in inflows.
• uses low inflows and it’s why we see inaccurate aquifer storage properties.
• should be recalibrated.

Cross examination of Dr. Bedekar:

Specific Yield is the amount of water contained within various types of materials within a physical cell or block of the aquifer. Clays have lower Specific Yield while rocks and sandy material have a higher Specific Yield. US Attorney for the GA Judith Coleman asks whether Dr. Bedekar conducted a complete analysis of the basin’s Hydrogeologic Conceptual Framework (HCF) and the properties of the IWV basin used in the Ramboll model. Dr. Bedekar states that all of the values in the Ramboll model were in the range of expected values. Mr. Parker previously testified that Ramboll’s HCF provides the most accurate basin geometry. (p.41 TWG Brief). Break.

(Ex. 271) Dr. Bedekar cross examination by GA attorney Kyle Brochard. Physical data is term used by Dr. Bedekar, and that data can change over time. The safe yield of 7,650 is unchanged since 2016. The Basin Characterization Model is the estimate of inflows and runoff. (Ex. 97 p.45). Variable inflows such as LADWP leakage, irrigation return flows, sewer pond return flows weren’t included as part of Dr. Bedekar’s analysis. Ramboll model does not use lagging return flows.

After the lunch break, Dr. Bedekar is asked about the comparison years of 1987 through 2022. In 1987, the models were first tested with a “no pumping” simulation to determine where the inflows would end up, either returned to storage or pooling and ET. Dr. Bedekar is trying to explain that after years of pumping, most of the inflows will go to storage, but he needs to check how the details of the “no pumping” scenario were analyzed and used in the models.

Next on the stand is expert witness for the Water District, Mr. Eddy Teasdale. (Ex. 500, Education and Qualifications). Mr. Teasdale is a certified professional hydrogeologist, and he’s worked for a variety of government agencies on projects including some related to SGMA and the development of GSPs including 5 groundwater basins in California. He uses the Change in Groundwater Storage method:

Mr. Teasdale’s expert work in this matter centered on assessing Safe Yield based on the
“Change in Groundwater Storage” method. This approach employs the Equation of Hydrologic
Equilibrium expressed as follows:
 Safe Yield = Pumping ± Change in Groundwater Storage
As used in the above equation, Change in Groundwater Storage is calculated as follows:
 Change in Groundwater Storage = Change in Water Level × Specific Yield × Basin Area

Change in Groundwater Storage is calculated spatially using the “Thiessen Polygon
Method,” whereby a basin is divided into discrete subareas (i.e., polygons). Each polygon is
delineated to correspond with the location of one or more monitoring wells selected based on
(1) the completeness and consistency of their water level records and (2) their geographic
distribution. This enables an assessment of Basin-wide Change in Groundwater Storage while
accurately accounting for spatially variable pumping and groundwater level changes. (p. 30 TWB Brief)

Mr. Teasdale was on the GA TAC. and didn’t recall where the 4,100 range to 7,700 starting point for calibrating the GA/DRI 2-D model came from. He testified that everything was “funneled through Stetson.” Did Stetson ever address concerns that the model was not vetted? Answer: No. Next questions referred to Ex. ? which is a letter to Steve Johnson in early January 2020 expressing Teasdale’s concerns that 5 previous comment letters were never addressed. “The lack of transparency is very disappointing,” said Teasdale. Mr. Johnson “never responded to any of his letters.” Break.

(Ex. ?). Change in storage uses a “Water budget, change in storage calculation, groundwater flow model.” Best practices would be to measure well levels from Spring to Spring. The Groundwater Flow Model would be the best method to determine the sustainable yield and the best method to use when planning management actions in the future. Teasdale checked well levels in the Meadowbrook Dairy and Brown Road area and didn’t see significant changes in the well water levels. (Ex. 119). Teasdale suggested in a letter that the pumping in the Brown Road area was 15,000 acre-feet per year. There was also a rise of water levels in the El Paso area indicating 1,000 to 4,000 acre-feet of subflow. (Ex. 921). In May of 2022, Teasdale was withdrawn from the TAC by his client, as there was no benefit to be on the TAC anymore. The Technical Working Group was “spun up”. Teasdale had been working in the basin on the TAC or the TWG for ten years. From a hydrogeologic perspective, Teasdale says he is very familiar with the characteristics of the IWV groundwater basin.

Questions regarding the Safe Yield. Teasdale didn’t base his conclusions on data collected from (the GA model’s base year) 1920, which seemed “a bit ridiculous”. Is the Recharge method more reliable than the Change in Storage method? No. Will a basins “safe yield” change over time. Yes. The current hydrogeologic analysis he uses are current data variables and “not based on data based on theoretical level from a hundred years ago.” All water levels are from actual data, not simulated.

(Ex. 511). Teasdale used 2 different Thiesson Polygons (extended ’85 vs. recent annual reports and the specific yield in the DRI 2020 model). (Ex. 519) Distribution of specific yields. He used the GA’s Thiesson Polygon and then redesigned it for the TWG Safe Yield report using the most recent Ramboll 2025 values. Safe yield is calculated using pumping less change in groundwater storage. Teasdale doesn’t use “recharge” in his analysis. If specific yield is unreasonably high, calculated safe yield is too low. Using measured groundwater levels is very important and the best available pumping data. Specific to water level changes. It’s all measurable data. The “recharge only” method used data from over 100 years ago. “It’s not measured data.”

Incidental recharge: (Ex. 605) Video of “Boulder Draw” water release from LADWP aqueduct in 2023. Groundwater levels, pumping and specific yield. If recharge occurs, it will be picked up using the Change in Storage method. As an input in a “Water Budget”, if it’s not included, it won’t be reflected in the safe yield.

(Ex. 611) Annual reports issued by the GA. Change in storage in the first annual report used a 41-Polygon (2015-2023) (Ex. 562) vs a 77-Polygon (Ex. 576) modified configuration in the most recent report. (Ex. 607) Safe yield using the specific yields in the annual reports. What happens using the 2025 Ramboll model? The safe yield goes from 10,500 up to 14,000. (Ex. 375) There have been several Change in Storage analyses done. Using all six from various reports and Teasdale’s expert report the Safe Yield comes in at 15,400. (Ex. 607) is next.

Court recesses until Monday June 22 at 9:00 a.m.

DAY FIVE UPDATE Tuesday June 16th, 2026:

Yesterday, Searles Valley Minerals filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In doing so, an automatic Stay of the Comprehensive Adjudication trial was required. Attorneys representing SVM were able to file a motion with the Bankruptcy court to have the Stay lifted by 8:15 a.m.

The 2025 Ramboll Model
Mr. Parker supervised development the 2025 Ramboll Model, a 3-D, basin-scale numerical
groundwater flow model designed to evaluate basin-wide responses to recharge, pumping, and
storage change. The model integrates decades of historical data with new data developed during
this adjudication, including the HCF and a comprehensive basin water balance. It incorporates
three of four HGZs from the HCF, with the model base defined at the bottom of HGZ3. (Ex. 97.)

The TWG uses the 2025 Ramboll Model as a scientifically grounded framework to
evaluate basin behavior and corroborate conclusions regarding safe yield and the volume of
groundwater in storage. It is not relied upon as a standalone calculator, but as a tool to test and
support expert analyses. (p. 43, TWG Brief)

Today, expert witness Dr. Matthew Tonkin is on the stand under cross examination by the GA’s attorneys. The initial line of questioning involves the Basin Characterization Model (BCM), the Ramboll model and the calculations used to determine the level of Evapotranspiration from overland mountain front runoff. (Note: Trial briefs can be downloaded at the bottom of this post. They’re helpful in following the progression of the trial as well as the terminology of the science.)

Judge Claster asked about evidence of underflow from Rose Valley. There’s very strong evidence for underflow, according to Dr. Tonkin. “There is a fault there (at Little Lake) and water levels rise to the top of the fault, and overflow into the Indian Wells Valley.” The volume of inflows into the IWV from Rose Valley is estimated to be 1,000 to 4,000 acre-feet per year according to a recent report from the GA. (Need to verify). Dr. McKenna and DRI estimates use 1,919 AFY. Ramboll estimates use 2,600 AFY.

Beginning on page 71 of the TWG Trial Brief, you’ll find the arguments made by Dr. Tonkin and the TWG regarding the flaws in the GA’s model and Dr. McKenna’s modeling.

VIII. THE U.S. AND IWVGA EXPERTS DO NOT OFFER INDEPENDENT OR
RELIABLE OPINIONS. (p. 71-79, TWG Trial Brief)

Cross examination of Dr. Tompkin continues up to the lunch period. Dr. McKenna’s work didn’t include any incidental or “Anthropogenic” sources of water in the calculation of recharge and consequentially, the safe yield. These flows would include water used in irrigation that re-enter the basin as well as water releases or leakage from the LADWP aqueducts.

Third, Dr. McKenna’s analysis omits well-established sources of recharge, including
anthropogenic contribution, such as irrigation return flows, system leakage, and other incidental
inflows. These sources are widely recognized as measurable and recurring components of
groundwater recharge in comparable California basins and are routinely incorporated into basin
wide water budgets. (p. 78, TWG Brief)

The afternoon session continues with cross examination of Dr. Tompkin by GA attorney Kyle Brochard. (Ex. 80). Questions concerning the use of the Thiesson Polygon and Ramboll models and the change in storage methods of determining safe yield. Thiesson requires a specific yield value. The models simulate water levels between known points. Thiesson is preferred because it matches the data, according to Dr. Tompkin. (ex. 936). Redirect by Water District attorney. The 1980-2023 base period was used by Dr. Tompkin. The TWG used a different approach to determining safe yield. The TWG evaluated groundwater elevation data and pumping data. Dr. Tompkin would like to see the local BCM used for calibration so that it can be updated over time.

Dr. Vivek Bedekar was next on the stand: Dr. Bedekar’s Review of the 2025 Ramboll Model

As described on pages 44-53 of the TWG Brief, Dr. Bedekar will offer a critical analysis of the 2025 GA/DRI modeling methodology used to calibrate the model using a fixed safe yield of 7,650 AFY. He also reviewed the model called the 2025 Ramboll Model.

Dr. Bedekar will testify that he reviewed the 2025 Ramboll Model to evaluate whether,
notwithstanding inherent modeling limitations, it provides a reliable and scientifically sound basis
for estimating safe yield and the volume of groundwater in storage in an adjudication. His review
applies accepted groundwater modeling principles and focuses on the model’s overall structure,
inputs, calibration behavior, and responsiveness to hydrologic stresses, rather than on whether the
model reproduces every localized condition with precision. (p 44, TWG Brief)

Dr. Bedekar works with Dr. Tompkin and has 25 years of experience in groundwater modeling. He’s currently working with DWR and developing models and guidance documents for California’s DWR as well as Arizona’s Department of Water Resources and modeling for the Phoenix Active Management Area.

Overall, model inflows are key to assessing safe yield in the IWV basin. (Ex. 48 and 50 Reports) The Ramboll model accurately accounts for inflows and is “physically based”. The BCM is recommended by DWR for the use of input simulation. The IWVGA model does not show an accurate representation of the basin. It lacked wet year inflows. The Ramboll model accounts for all of the inflows. Ex. 242. Cover page of the Basin Characterization Model (BCM). BCM uses precipitation and other processes to estimate recharge or inflows. The GA model uses McGraw’s 2016 study.

Ex 243, Total inflow in the Ramboll model. Ex. 244. Intermittent wet years in the IWV. Ex. 245 A cluster of wells show a “little jump” in water levels during wet years. 2017 and 2023 resulted in significant snowpack, and the increase in water levels is delayed. More than a dozen monitoring wells showed some type of response. Each well’s characteristics may show different response to precipitation events or wet years. Ex. 246.

1920-1926 water level data was used in the GA/DRI 2-D model. Recharge was back calculated. What happens if a model under-estimated inflow? The model will show lower water levels. Both models represented water declines well, but intermittent increases and decreases aren’t reflected in the GA/DRI model – “We don’t see any response” to variations in precipitation. The Ramboll model is not perfect as to timing, but the objective of the assessment is to account for inflows and safe yield.

Dr. Bedekar testified that the IWV is predominantly declining, the signal from wet years could be attenuated. The GA model should be recalibrated according to Dr. Bedekar. Aquifer properties in the GA model are “at their limit.” Ex. 251. Ex. 254. Both models work with agreed quantities. The only data for water levels is field data. In the Ramboll model, we know how much outflow, how much water levels have declined, and Ramboll comes back with plausible ranges or estimates of storage for each cell and the entire model distribution is used to determine the change in storage. The GA model uses recharge coming in and decline in water levels, with the change in storage on the high side of the limits of known or expected values.

Court will reconvene Wednesday at 9:00 a.m.

DAY FOUR UPDATE Monday June 15th, 2026:

Court reconvened at 9:00 a.m. and will continue after the lunch break at 1:30 p.m

An Ex Parte Motion filed the Groundwater Authority at the end of the day Friday was denied by Judge Claster. It was too late to file this motion, it should have been filed 6 or 12 months ago.

Lauren Wicks was cross-examined by the attorneys representing the GA, the City of Ridgecrest and the U.S.. Judge Claster gave wide leeway to the defense over objections by the attorneys for the Water District as the defense attorneys attempted to impeach the Wicks’ testimony. In any case, Wicks answered all questions with authority and clarity. Many of the questions involved the “specific yield”, which is a function of the physical composition of the ground under a well and how much water it can hold, with clay holding less water and rocky sand holding more water.

The District will call Matthew J. Tonkin of SSP&A to testify as an expert witness for
Phase 2. His testimony will address the TWG’s use of the Basin Characterization Model (BCM) developed by the USGS; the 2025 Ramboll Model; the role of groundwater models as corroborating tools; areas of material
difference between his estimate of safe yield and those of the U.S. and IWVGA; and his review
and critique of the analyses and opinions of Dr. Kincaid and Dr. McKenna. Dr. Tonkin will opine
that the Basin’s safe yield is approximately 14,375 AFY. (p. 53 TWG Brief)

Dr. Matthew Tonkin was the next expert witness for the IWV Water District and the TWG. Dr. Tonkin offered analysis of previous studies and the inadequacies of studies included in the GA’s estimate of safe yield. Much of his testimony included exhibits 400 through 422, which included his qualifications and resume, his reports on various aspects of the GA’s analysis of estimates of recharge, evapotranspiration and the characteristics of the physical basin. Mountain front recharge, Rose Valley subflow and other comparisons were made as he adjusted the estimates used by the GA in their model (the DRI 2-D model).

The Basin Characterization Model v.8 used by DWR was developed beginning 20 years ago. Precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration are used to determine the recharge using this model. The model can be used in conjunction with the Rambol Groundwater Flow Model in order to simulate the full hydrologic system. Mountain front recharge and subflows from Rose Valley, as well as incidental recharge (LADWP releases – leakage) is included in the modeling.

GA attorney’s objected to testimony by Dr. Tonkin concerning the base period used for the DRI 2-D model, which was 1920 to 1926. Dr. Tonkin described the base period used by the GA as a dry period. It was also a “pre-development” period, although production wells were in existence at the time.

Testimony ended earlier than expected. The attorneys needed to settle their differences apparently. We’ll see what tomorrow brings, but again, it was a very good day for the expert witnesses from the Water District. Best in class hydrogeologists are making the case for a safe yield nearly twice that of the Groundwater Authority’s 7,650 acre feet per year. Groundwater in storage is also a factor, and more on that important data point is to come.

Testimony continues at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

DAY THREE UPDATE Wednesday June 10th, 2026:

Tim Parker, PG, CEG, CHG
The District will call Timothy Parker of Ramboll and Parker Groundwater as an expert
during Phase 2. His testimony will address his experience in the Basin; the Basin Characterization
Model (“BCM”) developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”); the Hydrogeologic
Conceptual Framework (“HCF”) developed by Ramboll; his participation in the TWG; and
development of the 2025 Ramboll Model. (p. 40, TWG Brief)

It was a very good day for the IWV Water District and their technical experts, Timothy Parker and Lauren Wicks. Please refer to the TWG Trial Brief (download .pdf below) for their backgrounds. Both expert witnesses were well-prepared to answer questions by the attorneys and the judge, who was keenly interested in the science and their testimony.

The Technical Working Group was formed in 2022 and met every 2 weeks for 2 years. Both Tim Parker and Lauren Wicks were very involved in gathering available information from years of documentation on the hydrogeology in the basin. When asked whether GA TAC was involved in the determination and validation of the safe yield while on the TAC, as stated yesterday by GA water manager Steve Johnson of Stetson, Parker called it ‘hogwash’.

Parker’s testimony included questions about the Basin Characterization Model developed by the USGS as well as the Geophysical model used by SkyTem and their Aerial Electromagnetic survey. He also described what he called errors in the GA’s well mitigation analysis where over 90 wells were estimated to fail, calling that figure highly overstated as only a couple of well owners in the IWV have sought mitigation from the GA.

The USGS Basin Characterization Model was one of the methodologies used by the TWG in determining the recharge, along with the Thiessen Polygon method, were used to determine the recharged. Parker also testified that the GA TAC had “substantial disagreement” in both the determination of groundwater in storage and the safe yield.

Lauren Wicks, PG – Qualifications
Lauren Wicks is a Senior Geohydrologist with Geoscience. She has more than a decade of
experience working on groundwater basin studies, water budgets, and hydrogeologic analysis.
(Ex. 51.) Ms. Wicks’ work in the Basin began in 2019, when her firm was retained to evaluate
technical information in the draft GSP. As a member of the TWG, she participated in regular
meetings, coordinated technical input among the TWG experts, and helped prepare the 2024 TWG
Safe Yield Paper (Ex. 3) and its supporting Appendix A (Ex. 4). (p. 38, TWG Brief)

Hydrogeologist Lauren Wicks appeared to master the art of making complex hydrology simple to understand. She preferred he “Change in Storage Method” which uses multiple water level data sets in determining the safe yield. Judge Claster followed along with great interest, asking questions for clarification as needed.

At the end of the day, Wicks was confident in stating that the safe yield in the IWV Groundwater Basin was “comfortably 15,400 acre-feet per year”.

After testimony was over for the day, GA Attorney Kyle Brochard indicated that he may make a motion on Friday for a referee from the State Water Board to be brought in to help the judge interpret the science. Judge Claster said he was comfortable with what he was learning and indicated it wouldn’t be necessary.

The trial resumes on Monday at 9:00 a.m.

DAY TWO UPDATE Tuesday June 9th, 2026:

Note: These are notes without transcripts and based on a short memory. They may be edited for accuracy or corrections as needed.

Judge Claster is allowing the GA Attorneys the opportunity to present highly technical testimony by Jean Moran of Stetson Engineers, on the models and how they calculate flows using cells, rows and columns as described in a USGS modeling framework called Modflow.

IX.
THE IWVGA WATER RESOURCES MANAGER AND MODELER DO NOT
OFFER ANY VALID EXPERT OPINIONS BUT MAKE SIGNIFICANT
ADMISSIONS.

The IWVGA hired Stetson and its CEO, Mr. Stephen Johnson, as the Water Resources
Manager to develop the GSP. The IWVGA did not designate Mr. Johnson as a witness for this
trial; rather, the IWVGA fought vigorously and unsuccessfully to prevent Mr. Johnson from
testifying altogether.

Similarly, the IWVGA did not designate Stetson employee Jean Moran as a retained
expert, despite her role overseeing Stetson’s GSP modeling analysis. (Ex. 15.)
IWVGA’s motivations to hide or minimize Stetson’s role at trial are clear. Neither Mr.
Johnson nor Ms. Moran developed or independently verified the 7,650 AFY sustainable yield
figure. They merely accepted that figure as provided to them by DRI and then hard-wired it into
the GSP. (p. 85, TWG Brief)

GA Attorney Kyle Brochard is developing the case that the TWG Working Group’s experts were actively involved in the TAC and TAC ad hoc committee that was involved in the process of the development of the GRI 2-D model. Judge Claster asks Brochard how any of the questions specifically relate to the safe yield. Judge Claster again asks where the 7,650 figure came from, whether it be from the GRI 2-D model or a discussion among the members of the TAC. DRI gave a presentation on what the DRI 2-D model produced. Judge Claster asked Moran whether she’d seen the model and she replied that she hadn’t seen the model, although she trusted what DRI was presenting. There was a decision by the TAC ad hoc committee to use different USGS recharge estimates and test those numbers with the model. Attorney Brochard is arguing that this is how the TAC determined the recharge.

Over the objections by Water District attorneys, Judge Claster says that an advisory committee (the TAC) qualifies as an official agency and that Stetson employees are viewed as public employees, therefore exhibits and testimony from the TAC are admissible as evidence and not treated as hearsay evidence. After the break, Moran testifies that a consensus of the TAC ad hoc group determined the model would be calibrated with a recharge of 7,650 and it would be fixed.

Moran testifies that she did not have access to the GA/DRI 2020 model code used in the GSP. The Navy wouldn’t allow access to the model, and neither were other members of the TAC. She then testifies that she didn’t have access to the model code until 2023. In 2018 Commander Benson issued a letter requiring a configuration management plan in order for Stetson to have access to the model.

Next, Moran begins testimony regarding the Thiesson Polygon method of determining the change in groundwater in storage. Judge Claster asks if changes were made to the method after it was first introduced. Due to both the earthquakes and Covid, wells weren’t measured or were measured late. The method relies on year over year data in order to be used in the evaluation of the change in groundwater in storage. Water District attorneys again object that the evidence and testimony is not from a public employee (Moran) and is hearsay. Brochard argues that the water manager and Stetson are agents or public employees. Judge Clasart agrees that the evidence is hearsay and sustains the objections of the Water District attorneys.

Cross examination by Jefferey Dunn for the Water District. Dunn asks Moran why the 2016 DRI – 2D model was calibrated the way it was. Questions then relate to calibration of the GA/DRI 2020 and GA/DRI 2025 models and how the 2016 model was calibrated, Moran agrees that calibration questions would be better directed to the DRI modelers.

Jean Moran continued testimony after the lunch break. Attorney Derek Hoffman for the TWG and Water District continued questioning Moran on the models and the original DRI – 2D model wherein it was determined that Steve Johnson of Stetson and the GA would “never change” the baseline safe yield of 7,650. It was unclear how the number was tested prior to fall of 2017 when Stetson was hired.

Moran’s testimony included questions regarding the GSP page 148:

Mountain front recharge is the dominant source of inflow to the Basin. In 2014, Todd Engineers prepared
a study that reviewed previous recharge studies and made new estimates (Todd Engineers, 2014). In 2016,
DRI conducted a comprehensive review of recharge estimates for the Basin (McGraw et al, 2016). DRI
reviewed fourteen previous studies and then updated the recharge estimates using an empirical
relationship between precipitation and groundwater recharge. The average annual recharge developed
by DRI is 7,650 AF per year (McGraw et al, 2016; Garner et al, 2017). The recharge zones identified by DRI
are shown in Figure 3-11. The total area of recharge is about 770 square miles. The area and estimated
annual recharge in each zone are shown in Table 3-3.

Stephen Johnson, CEO of Stetson Engineers, is next on the witness stand. Johnson was questioned about his involvement in the process of creating the GSP. A clearly frustrated Judge Clasert was unconvinced that any of Johnson’s testimony would be relevant in determining the safe yield of the basin. Johnson’s role was as a manager putting the work of the TAC, minutes of meetings and presentations to the board together for the monthly meetings. He denied setting the safe yield at 7,650 and never asked for the model from DRI in spite of requests by members of the TAC for access to the model.

The final witness for the day was Tim Parker, the expert witness for the Water District. His qualifications and experience in the Indian Wells Valley, as well as his work on a valley technical advisory committee that was formed in the 2000’s, were reviewed and he’ll be on the stand for most of the day tomorrow. Parker has been a hydrogeologist, lecturer and author of a book on groundwater management as well as an advisor to Kern County and DWR in the development of a groundwater flow model using Skytem aerial electromagnetic surveys used by DWR to develop modeling tools by GSA’s in California. He was also involved in the development of the USGS Basin Characterization Model which is the best available science for determining recharge from rainfall and snow.

DAY ONE UPDATE Monday June 8th, 2026:

The first day of the Phase 2 trial included expert testimony by hydrogeologists Anthony Brown of Aquilogic for the IWV Technical Working Group and Jean Moran of Stetson Engineers for the Groundwater Authority. The testimony centered around the creation of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the creation the GA/DRI 2020 model used for the valley’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Groundwater Authority attorney Kyle Brochard questioned Mr. Brown’s limited direct involvement with the TAC, while Moran’s testimony was limited to an overview of the creation of the TAC in Fall of 2017, and her involvement in constructing the GA/GRI 2020 model. The GSP was approved by the Authority’s board of directors of in January 2020.

Judge Claster allowed questions by Brochard concerning exhibits used in the GSP as well as testimony by Moran and her involvement with the TAC, the GA/DRI 2020 model and the production of the GSP, but he limited admissibility of various technical reports into evidence as he failed to see how they could address the central question of the “safe yield” without scientific validation and additional expert testimony prior to the trial. “We could be here for months” he said at one point.

End of Day One Update.

Using multiple independent analytical methods, those analyses consistently converge on the same conclusion: the Basin’s safe yield is substantially greater than 7,650 AFY—conservatively no less than 14,300 AFY and approximately 15,400 AFY. – Indian Wells Valley Technical Working Group

June 6th, 2026

Indian Wells Valley California

The Indian Wells Valley’s Comprehensive Adjudication Phase 2 trial begins on June 8th, 2026. The trial will be held at the Superior Court in Orange County, Judge William D. Claster presiding. The trial is expected to last for 3 weeks so bookmark https://Roadrunner395.com for regular updates during the entire month of June.

Should the Indian Wells Valley Water District prevail in the “safe yield” trial, residents of the IWV and the district’s ratepayers could save or recover millions of dollars in expenses and damages related to the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), the Groundwater Authority’s “replenishment fee” and the AVEK pipeline project. Customers of the water district have already paid nearly $20 million in “replenishment fees” to the GA and not one drop of water has been purchased for the GA’s imported water project and pipeline.

Timeline and the Creation of the IWV Technical Working Group (TWG)

The TWG was deliberately structured to promote methodological rigor, transparency, and technical coherence. Rather than producing a single, consolidated opinion…

• SGMA passed and was signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014.
• July 15, 2016 Joint Powers Agreement created IWVGA Effective (Basin 6-054 SGMA Portal – Map Viewer)
• June 2017, GA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meets for the first time.
• January 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) approved.
• October 2020 Mojave Pistachios, Searles Valley Minerals file lawsuits against the IWV Groundwater Authority
• June 16th, 2021, IWV Water District files Comprehensive Adjudication Lawsuit vs. IWV Groundwater Authority
• Early 2022, IWV Technical Working Group (TWG) Formed.
• December 5th, 2023, IWVWD Press Release: New Analyses Show Significantly More Water Available in IWV
• January 2025 IWVWD, SVM score major court victory over IWVGA in adjudication fight (Phasing Order upheld)
• September 15th, 2025, Phase 1 Decision: The Court finds that the Navy’s federal reserve water right is 2,008 AFY
• June 8th, 2026, Phase 2 trial begins

The “Safe Yield” in the IWV Groundwater Basin is between 14,300 and 15,400 acre-feet per year – Indian Wells Valley Technical Working Group (TWG)

The IWV Technical Working Group experts will present evidence and testimony that the Safe Yield in the basin is conservatively 14,300 acre-feet per year and as high as 15,400 acre-feet per year.

The Groundwater Authority’s experts will attempt to make the case that many historical studies form the basis for a safe yield estimate of 7,650 acre-feet per year. Furthermore, the Groundwater Authority fixed the safe yield at 7,650 acre-feet per year in models developed after the Groundwater Sustainability Plan was adopted.

The original model used to develop the GSP, called the DRI 2-D Model, has vanished.

SGMA 10th Anniversary – The Road to Sustainability is Filled with Potholes

On November 18th, 2024, the California Natural Resources Agency sponsored an event celebrating the 10th anniversary of the passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Former Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law, which was sponsored by former assemblyman Roger Dickinson of the California State Assembly.

As keynote speaker, Brown touted the law as “democracy in action” while saying “we all need rules”. Most of the 6-hour video is filled with state water officials congratulating themselves for overcoming the challenges of bringing up over 160 new Government Sustainability Agencies that would manage groundwater basins throughout the state. Only during the last panel discussion was any mention made of the severe economic damages to be caused by SGMA.

It can be said that the medicine called SGMA is worse than the disease. The law is a bandaid covering up the fact that California has mismanaged its abundant water resources for years, and no new projects have been built since Proposition 1 was passed in 2014.

Last year, during a Water and Natural Resources committee hearing on AB 1413, State Senator Melissa Hurtado stated that SGMA was “a failed experiment, it picks winners and losers”. A study out of UC Berkely determined that over one million acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland would be fallowed, 85,000 jobs would be lost, and over $7 billion in economic losses would result from SGMA per year!

Video is timestamped to begin with the keynote speech of governor Brown with a short introduction by Karla Nemeth, the Director of the California Department of Water Resources:

The Agenda can be viewed here: AGENDA It’s well worth watching if you’re strategizing how to fight SGMA and DWR while they destroy farmers and agriculture communities throughout the state.

Flashback to 2020

Press Release: October 2, 2020 – Searles Valley Minerals and Mojave Pistachios file lawsuits against the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority

Searles Valley Mineral also filed a lawsuit against the IWVGA this week, with claims that the new [replenishment] fee increases would push “Searles Valley Minerals out of business after more than 140 years of operation. Searles is a pillar of the Trona and Ridgecrest communities, providing jobs and economic benefits to these communities since we were founded in 1873,” said Burnell Blanchard, Vice President of Operations for Searles Valley Minerals. “We’ve maintained our workforce through natural disasters, a global pandemic and the subsequent economic crisis. Now, we face the threat of closing our doors and putting hundreds of people out of work because the Authority has refused to recognize our long-established groundwater rights.”

Fast Forward to 2026

“SGMA is a failed experiment. It picks winners and losers”. California State Senator Melissa Hurtado during a committee hearing on AB 1413 in May of 2025.

Searles was diplomatic when it announced it was shutting down over half of their business last February. The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority’s “replenishment fee” was the last straw. Searles refused to pay the “replenishment fee”. So did Mojave Pistachios. The only “large pumpers” in the IWV paying the fee are the customers of the Indian Wells Valley Water District.

How Big is the Pie?

Hydrogeology is the branch of geology concerned with water occurring underground or on the surface of the earth.

If you’re interested in geology and hydrogeology, the Indian Wells Valley in California is the place to be. It’s one of the most complex and fascinating groundwater basins in California. The valley has been studied for decades by scientists who’ve been monitoring, hypothesizing and debating about the hydrogeology since the beginning of the last century, well before the passage of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Conversation and public comments by politicians about Comprehensive Adjudication lawsuits and “groundwater in storage” have been condensed into one simple metaphor; How big is the pie and how are the pieces of the pie allocated among the many owners of the pie (who are the holders of the water rights).

The Pie is recharged (inflow) and pumped (outflow) and if too much water is pumped over the inflow, it’s called overdraft. SGMA won’t allow groundwater pumpers to extract any more groundwater than what’s called the “Safe Yield”, otherwise undesirable results will occur from overdraft, chief among them wells running dry and land subsidence.

In order to achieve sustainability by 2040, the Groundwater Authority intended to import water into the basin via a pipeline called AVEK. This was the intention of the GA from day one. The “science” didn’t matter. It was generally accepted that the valley was in “critical overdraft”. The verdict was in the day the Government Sustainability Agency (GSA) called the IWV Groundwater Authority was created.

The TAC vs. the TWG and the “Safe Yield”

This is what the Comprehensive Adjudication Phase 2 trial is all about. It’s the ultimate hydrology test in a court of law. In this case, the hydrogeologists that will testify during the trial are some of the best in the business. All of them, both the plaintiff’s experts (IWV Technical Working Group – TWG) and the experts for the defense (For all intents Stetson was the TAC, or the Technical Advisory Committee), have a stake in the outcome.

The TAC was comprised of eight members representing various interests including large agriculture, business interests, domestic well owners, and wholesaler and industrial users. All TAC members were required to have a formal education and experience in a groundwater-related field while also understanding the technical aspects of the Basin or similar basins in California. The District, Mojave Pistachios, Meadowbrook, and Searles each had their own representative on the TAC: Tim Parker represented the District; Wade Major represented Mojave Pistachios; Eddy Teasdale represented Meadowbrook; and
Adam Bingham represented Searles.11 Tim Parker and Eddy Teasdale are the same experts testifying in this Phase 2 trial. Anthony Brown is the founder and CEO of Aquilogic, where Wade Major is employed, and occasionally attended TAC meetings. (p. 18, TWB Brief)

California water laws include a well-tested definition of “Safe Yield”, which must use scientific methods to analyze and validate or test the data. That’s why the DRI 2-D model is so important. A week ago, we learned that the model is missing, it “vanished”. Subsequent versions of the DRI model are called GSA/DRI 2020 and GSA/DRI 2025. Both of them used a fixed value for the safe yield, i.e. 7,650 acre-feet per year derived from the figure in the missing model.

Anthony Brown’s Qualifications

The District designated Anthony Brown of Aquilogic as a non-retained expert for Phase 2. His testimony will address foundational groundwater concepts; his experience on the IWVGA Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) compared to the TWG; Aquilogic’s analysis of groundwater in storage; and Aquilogic’s shallow well analysis. (p. 25, TWG Brief)

Mr. Brown has an extensive 35-year history in hydrology. His work includes groundwater resource assessment, water budgets, safe and sustainable yield estimations, groundwater modeling, evaluation of undesirable results, and preparation and review of GSPs under SGMA. He has qualified as an expert five times in federal court and ten times in state court and has been retained as an expert in water-rights disputes in 11 California basins, while providing SGMA consulting in more than 40 California basins. (Ex. 200.) (p. 37 TWG Brief)

Mr. Brown will testify that his experience serving on the IWVGA’s TAC—“one of the most disappointing processes [he’d] ever been involved in” (Brown Depo., 142:23–143:19) – differed materially from his subsequent experience participating in the TWG, particularly with respect to how technical input was developed, vetted, and incorporated into substantive decision
making.

The Missing Model and Navy’s Federal Reserve Water Right

What we have coming up in Phase 2 is a disagreement on the baseline assumption that the Indian Wells Valley’s Safe Yield is 7,650 acre feet per year. The Safe Yield was based on an average of multiple studies leading up to 2016, and ultimately, the figure that was plugged into the “Navy’s” DRI 2-D Model which has “vanished”.

It’s also the number that the GA and the Navy concluded was the Navy’s “federal reserve water right” – 7,650 AFY.

As a result, any groundwater pumped by the “large pumpers” in the valley in excess of 7,650 acre feet per year would be assessed a Replenishment Fee which would be used by the GA to buy “Table A” water from the California State Water Project so that it could be imported to the valley via the new AVEK pipeline, a $400 million 50 mile long project extending the existing AVEK pipeline that currently terminates in California City.

In Phase 1 of the trial, Judge William D. Claster decided that the Navy was only entitled federal reserve water rights to 2,008 acre feet per year, not the entirety of the safe yield figure of 7,650.

Who Do You Trust? The GA or the “Large Pumpers”?

IWV Groundwater Authority Press Release: April 18th, 2025

We’ll pull one sentence from the above press release to save you the time of actually opening and reading it. Suffice it to say, you can call it misinformation, propaganda or plain old unadulterated bullshit. The press release was issued in the wake of the AB 1413 legislation and violations of the Brown Act by the City of Ridgecrest last May.

“The adjudication lawsuit is a tactic for the water district to claim more water rights after a Groundwater Sustainability Plan approved by the state in 2022 found that the total sustainable yield for the Indian Wells basin is only 7,650 acre-feet per year – considerably less than the roughly 20,000 acre-feet per year that is being overdrafted today.“

This statement is patently false. First, the overdraft, using the current pumping and recharge, is roughly 20,500 acre-feet per year less the recharge of 7,650 acre-feet per year. The overdraft, using the GA’s numbers, is approximately 13,950 acre-feet per year.

Furthermore, if the Technical Working Group is correct, the overdraft is 20,500 acre feet per year less the recharge or safe yield of 14,300, or conservatively 7,200 acre-feet per year using the TWG’s numbers, and that number includes current pumping by the farmers in Inyokern.

It’s outlandish to say that the Water District is trying to claim more water rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. They’re trying to save their ratepayers millions and millions of dollars in unnecessary fees and an unnecessary $400 million pipeline while protecting everyone’s water rights.

The water district’s adjudication lawsuit wasn’t a tactic, it was a necessary legal action to force the Navy to the table in order to establish Navy’s federal reserve water right, which ultimately was decided to be 2,008-acre feet per year by Judge Claster in Phase 1. The GA illegally allocated the entire safe yield of 7,650 to the Navy.

Furthermore, the parties to the comprehensive adjudication are collectively called large pumpers; Searles Valley Minerals, Mojave Pistachios, Meadowbrook and the IWV Water District. The large pumpers needed to establish the size of the pie in Phase 2.

Water District Responds – June 20th, 2025

Water District board members have said they believe if it’s proven that the basin has more water and recharges with more water annually — and if farming is reduced in the valley — there may be no need for an imported water pipeline to support the valley’s current needs. Read that again. “No need for an imported water project”.

What Was the TAC Committee Doing During the Leadup to the adoption of the GSP?

From June 2017 to the adoption of the GSP in January 2020, the TAC formally held 28 meetings.12 All of these meetings were open to the public and most were recorded with video or audio available after the meeting. During these meetings, the Basin’s physical characteristics and water budget were discussed and determined. Additionally, the District and Meadowbrook’s representatives, Mr. Parker and Mr. Teasdale, were members of the TAC’s Model Ad Hoc Group, a specialized sub-group of the TAC that held (p. 18, IWVGA/City Brief)

That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t satisfy the requirements the court needs to evaluate the science behind the model and the determination of the safe yield.

This is not merely a discovery dispute. Nor is it a disagreement among competing experts concerning assumptions or methodologies. The problem is more fundamental: the IWVGA and U.S. ask this Court to adopt a safe yield figure derived from a scientific model that no party has been permitted to examine and no expert in this case has independently evaluated—not even the experts for the IWVGA (Dr. Todd Kincaid) and the U.S. (Dr. Sean McKenna). The absence of the DRI 2-D Model deprives the Court of any meaningful ability to determine whether the 7,650 AFY figure rests on reliable hydrogeologic analysis or merely reflects assumptions embedded within an inaccessible and untestable modeling framework.

The Dog Ate My Homework

The Groundwater Authority’s closing arguments are unimpressive, immaterial and they ignore the “missing model”.

The IWV Groundwater Authority’s case rests on Validation (or lack of a Reverse Validation Action), Deference to the GA, and Rebuttal of the Safe Yield and other Physical Facts. However, the Groundwater Authority hasn’t challenged the fact that the DRI 2-D model is missing. This is a case of “the Dog ate my homework”, and it appears the GA has a serious problem on their hands. We’ll see what Judge Claster has to say about this very soon.

VI. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE GSP’S SUSTAINABLE YIELD BECAUSE IT IS VALIDATED AND IMMUNE FROM CHALLENGE (p. 35 IWVGA Brief)

A. The Validation Statutes Provide the Exclusive Means for Challenging the GSP’s Sustainable Yield (p. 35, IWVGA Brief)

B. The Court Should Defer to the GSP’s Sustainable Yield Because No Party Successfully Challenged It Through Reverse
Validation (p. 37, IWVGA Brief)

VII. THE COURT SHOULD ACCORD DUE DEFERENCE TO THE GSP’S SUSTAINABLE YIELD UNDER LONG-STANDING PRINCIPLES OF DEFERENCE (p. 38, IWVGA Brief)

VIII. THE LARGE PUMPERS BEAR THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE GSP’S SUSTAINABLE YIELD AND OTHER PHYSICAL FACTS (p. 40, IWVGA Brief)

IX. THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE GSP’S SUSTAINABLE YIELD BECAUSE IT IS THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY OF WATER THAT CAN BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT CAUSING AN UNDESIRABLE RESULT (p. 47, IWVGA Brief)

SGMA is not “democracy in action” as Jerry Brown would like you to believe.

SGMA has no “local control” as DWR would like you to believe either. For additional background information on SGMA and the inherent structural corruption built into the application of the law, please see PREVIEW.

The Word for the Day is “Corruption”:

Filed Briefs – Comprehensive Adjudication Phase 2 Trial

Briefs have been filed in advance of the Phase 2 trial. There are four briefs. We suggest you read through the Index of the Technical Working Group brief later in order to get the big picture. You can download all of the briefs below. All of the exhibits and the briefs can be found on the IWV Water District’s website: https://www.iwvwd.com/basin-adjudication-important-documents

IWV Technical Working Group (IWV Water District):

TWG’s Phase 2 Joint Trial BriefDownload

IWV Groundwater Authority and City of Ridgecrest:

IWVGA and City’s Phase 2 Joint Trial BriefDownload

United States (DOJ-Navy)

USA’s Phase 2 Trial BriefDownload

State of California

State’s Phase 2 Trial BriefDownload

Phase 2 (Safe Yield) Technical Reports and Phase 2 (Safe Yield) Technical Response Reports 

can be downloaded from the IWV Water District’s website:

Cast of Characters in the Great Indian Wells Valley Water War