No, this post isn’t about chickens, but we thought it might get the City of Ridgecrest’s attention.

Publisher’s Note: You’ll find “Suggestions to Resolve this Mess” at the bottom of the page, along with the video from the IWV Groundwater Authority’s meeting of September 9th, 2026. Public Comments will be time-stamped when the video is archived.

LIVE FEED:

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

September 9th, 2026

Ridgecrest California

The email below was sent by the CEO of Capitol Core Group, Michael McKinney, on January 22, 2025. The purpose of the email was to shop for a sponsor or “author” of legislation designed to avoid the discovery of evidence in the Phase Two Comprehensive Adjudication lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by the three “large pumpers” in the Indian Wells Valley; Searles Valley Minerals, Mojave Pistachios and the Indian Wells Valley Water District. The pumpers then formed a Technical Working Group to challenge the GA’s estimates of “Safe Yield”, which they felt was a gross misrepresentation of the true recharge in the basin.

The Groundwater Authority went to great lengths to obstruct and prevent the Phase Two trial, and they spent a substantial amount of your “Replenishment Fee” money on legal fees and lobbying expenses.

The “science” that was used to develop the Indian Wells Valley’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan was improperly fixed with a “Safe Yield” of 7,650 acre feet per year, and the Groundwater Authority was desperately fearful that the Phase Two trial would expose the true hydrogeologic conditions in the basin.

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

The evidence received from our Public Records Act request clearly proves that the GA initiated and sponsored the legislation, and their attorneys and agents at Capitol Core were actively working on the legislation for months leading up to April of 2025 when the bills were first introduced in the legislature.

Not only that, the Department of Water Resources was in on the scam!

Apparently, the Department of Water Resources was drawn into the scam, and perhaps they are unaware of the rotten, corrupt history of the GA we’ve been laying out for you for over the last 6 years. Here’s the GA’s agent McKinney, communicating with the DWR on wording in the legislation:

DWR, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Department of Justice recognize
the issue, have worked with IWVGA on language, and recognize the proposal as a solution
to the problem (everything short of endorsement). McKinney email dated January 22, 2025

The reason the GA’s attorneys and McKinney kept all of this a secret from the people in the Indian Wells Valley (as well as hiding their actions from the parties to the lawsuit) is painfully obvious. This was an attempt to change the rules of the ballgame in the middle of the game. Some would argue that their actions amount to an obstruction of justice and denial of due process afforded by the comprehensive adjudication legal process that was established pre-SGMA.

Once again, we’ll reiterate that sponsoring legislation is not a “legal strategy” that can be used as a defense against violations of the Brown Act, and by the way, fraud and coverup is not an advisable legal strategy either, especially for a government agency.

For a recap and highlights on these issues, please see the following Post:

They already knew that opposition to the bills was mounting, so they sent a Ridgecrest Councilmember, Kyle Blades, and City Manager Ron Strand, up to Sacramento in April of 2026 with a fraudulent letter in hand stating that the City of Ridgecrest supported the legislation. Of course, the GA’s chairman and Ridgecrest councilman Scott Hayman tagged along to oversee the operation.

Agricultural interests and Cal-Chamber will oppose it. The Judicial Council also opposes it,
and we are addressing their opposition points now. – McKinney email dated January 22, 2025

Here’s the Smoking Gun:

I hope that the Directors have reviewed the email and my article titled “To the Kern County District Attorney”. It’s been shared and viewed far and wide throughout the State of California.

I have some suggestions for your consideration:

Suggestions to Resolve this Mess

The attorneys that have been representing the IWV Groundwater Authority over the last 8 years have unwisely exposed the Board of Directors to severe legal jeopardy with clear violations of the Brown Act.

The recently completed Phase Two trial provided evidence of gross mismanagement and manipulation of the science that was used by Stetson Engineers to develop the IWV’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

As a result of your actions and your failure to control the attorneys while Stetson manipulated the science, the GA must be reorganized, and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan must be modified and amended with the approval of the Department of Water Resources.

Attorneys

1. Kern County is not in compliance with the JPA and the Kern County Counsel’s Office should appoint an attorney to the GA immediately.
2. The GA Is currently represented only by Keith Lemieux. His law firm should be immediately removed as the GA’s legal counsel. Lemieux can’t serve the GA and City of Ridgecrest at the same time. The Ridgecrest City Council is in hot water too.
3. The GA has paid the City of Ridgecrest $1.7 million to reimburse the city for Lemieux’s legal expenses without any itemization for those legal expenses. A full and complete audit is necessary and proper.

Comprehensive Adjudication and Settlements

1. The GA must file a motion in Orange County Superior Court stipulating to the Safe Yield of 14,300 afy as set forth by the IWV Technical Working Group.
2. After the GA stipulates to the Phase Two Safe Yield, all parties to the Comprehensive Adjudication lawsuit called Mojave Pistachios can proceed to Phase Three, which is the process referred to as “dividing up the pie”
3. The GA must then renegotiate the settlement with Searles Valley Minerals as needed with the full cooperation of San Bernardino County
4. The GA must then renegotiate the settlement with Mojave Pistachios as needed with the full cooperation of Kern County, which encouraged farming in the IWV in the first place.

“Critical Overdraft” Designation and Replenishment Fees

1. The IWV groundwater basin should be removed from the “Critical Overdraft” designation. Economic Development in the IWV is severely impacted by this improper designation.
2. The GA shall file an amendment modifying the Groundwater Sustainability Plan showing that all Corrective Actions have been taken as per the requirements of the Department of Water Resources.
3. The “Imported Water Project” shall be deemed infeasible. The design of the AVEK pipeline will be 100% complete by the end of the year, and it must be placed in file drawer and dusted off in 30 or 40 or 100 years if needed.
4. The GA must stop immediately cease the imposition of Replenishment Fees and apply funds not spent to a Fallowing Project and the purchase of water rights in order to reduce pumping from 20,500 afy to under 17,000 afy.

File a Motion, Modify the GSP (and Fire Stetson Engineers)

1. The GA shall stipulate to the use of the Ramboll Groundwater Model as presented in the Phase Two Trial. The science behind the Ramboll model uses methods and studies that are currently accepted in practice by the Department of Water Resources.
2. The modified GSP shall include the stipulated Safe Yield of 14,300 afy, the actual pumping of 20,500 afy as reported during the 2025 water year, and the hydrogeologic studies proving the Groundwater in Storage in the IWV basin totals 37,500,000 af of potable water and 22,000,000 of brackish or non-potable water.
3. The modified GSP shall include a clearly defined Well Mitigation Program for de-minimus pumpers.
4. The modified GSP shall include a “Fallowing Plan” and funding mechanism for the purchase of farmland in the IWV and any water rights thereto.
5. The modified GSP shall include alternative projects for water rights to be purchased from the Little Lake area or the Rose Valley subbasin, with Inyo County’s full cooperation.
6. A spreading agreement with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will increase the supply of water for recharge in the basin as well as supporting sustainability.The GA shall replace the “water manager” Stetson Engineers at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the IWV Water District should fill this role.
7. Many contractors working with the GA are no longer needed.
8. The Indian Wells Valley, the City of Ridgecrest and the Navy can move on to a brighter future as it pertains to groundwater sustainability and SGMA.