The Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority on a majority vote approved submission of a $5,000,000 congressional earmark request under the Energy and Water Development Act to initiate project work on a proposed water replenishment pipeline with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Michael McKinney of Capital Corp Group told the board the $5 million would be the initial tranche against a $50 million authorization and would need to be spent in fiscal 2027.

Directors pressed staff on the obligations that come with serving as the nonfederal sponsor, including how the required nonfederal match (about $12.5 million per $50 million tranche, as discussed at the meeting) would be funded. Staff and consultants said no board‑approved plan yet exists; options discussed included state funding, future earmarks or local contribution, and the board was told those options would be pursued over the coming year.

The board also received an operational update on the wider imported water/pipeline program. Omar Dandashi, Blue Mountain’s project manager, described work to establish an integrated master schedule tying environmental review, 90% design, right‑of‑way acquisition and construction phasing to available funding. He emphasized coordination with the Bureau of Land Management and Southern California Edison as critical path items.

Provost & Pritchard’s engineering lead, Jeff Davis, summarized why change orders were now under consideration: late-arriving geotechnical and scour modeling indicated scour risk in several dry‑wash crossings and sections under county roads, forcing design reconsiderations after 30% design was completed. Davis said additional project‑management and coordination work (chiefly April–October efforts with SCE, AVEC and multiple subconsultants) generated significant staff hours; he said tables in the packet showed prior months’ work and projected near‑term needs and that some internal budget transfers reduced the net ask. He described alternatives to deep burial where costs would be prohibitive, and noted some repair and phased‑construction approaches may be necessary if scour damage occurs in service years.

Given outstanding questions about scope, cost and remaining technical work (including AVEC system modeling and further coordination with SCE and the Corps), a majority of the board voted to continue the Provost & Pritchard change‑order item to the Authority’s December meeting so staff and consultants can provide more detail and a refined cost/scope recommendation.

The board’s vote to approve the earmark submission carried with the following roll call: Chairman Peters — aye; Vice Chair Blades — aye; Director Saint Amond — no; Director Etnier — aye; Director Vallejo — aye. The motion to table the Provost & Pritchard change orders to the December meeting carried by a similar majority. Staff will return with refined budget impacts and a plan for next steps.