RIDGECREST, Kern County — Updated October 15, 2026. The Kern County District Attorney has concluded that the Ridgecrest City Council never lawfully voted to support AB 1413 or AB 1466, even though city officials represented support for the groundwater-related legislation as the official position of the city. The conclusion is contained in a seven-page letter dated October 12, 2026, signed by District Attorney Cynthia J. Zimmer and addressed to the council and city manager.

What the prosecutor established

The investigation reviewed documents, recordings of testimony before California Assembly committees and the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and interviews. The letter states that Councilmember Kyle Blades and then-City Manager Ron Strand presented a city position that had not been adopted in a lawful public vote. Zimmer concluded their statements misrepresented the City of Ridgecrest’s position and deprived residents of an opportunity to participate in the public decision-making process.

April 2025: a letter on city letterhead

According to the prosecutor, Strand initially drafted an April 2025 letter supporting AB 1466 and directed City Clerk Ricca Charlon to format it on Ridgecrest city letterhead. Blades signed the letter, which stated that the City of Ridgecrest supported the bill. The investigation found no credible evidence that the council had lawfully authorized that statement.

What happened at legislative hearings?

On April 8, 2025, Blades registered support for AB 1413 at the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife as “Kyle Blades. City of Ridgecrest. Strongly support.” He also registered support for AB 1466. On April 29, the prosecutor found his testimony before the Assembly Judiciary Committee appropriately expressed his personal views, without claiming an official city position. This distinction matters: elected officials retain their First Amendment rights to advocate as individuals.

May 5: questions at the Kern County Board of Supervisors

At the May 5, 2025 county supervisors’ meeting, Supervisor Couch asked city representatives whether Ridgecrest had formally decided to support the bills. The prosecutor’s letter says Blades and Strand suggested the support was established in a closed session on legal strategy. Strand acknowledged there had been no affirmative public vote.

Brown Act: no evidence of a lawful council vote

Zimmer explained that a policy position on pending legislation cannot lawfully be adopted in a closed session under the Brown Act’s narrow litigation exception. The investigation could not substantiate that any council vote took place in closed session; nor was there a reported closed-session vote or vote count. The documented problem is therefore the unsupported claim that the city had endorsed the bills, not a proven secret council vote. The letter says an official position would have required a lawful public vote and opportunity for public input.

Will criminal charges be filed?

No charges are contemplated as a result of this investigation, the District Attorney writes. The letter warns generally about possible criminal liability for false or forged documents but says the evidence in this matter did not establish a basis for prosecution under the cited provisions. It describes the identified error as political rather than criminal and leaves potential political consequences to voters. California58 does not describe Blades or Strand as convicted, criminally guilty, or proven to have forged a document.

What the report does not establish

This letter addresses advocacy for AB 1413 and AB 1466 in 2025. It does not investigate or establish a separate alleged disclosure of closed-session discussions at a 2026 candidates’ forum. Any such allegation would require its own recording, records and response from those involved before it could be reported as fact.

Sources and continuing questions

Outstanding questions include whether the city will publicly discuss the prosecutor’s findings, adopt clearer rules governing statements of official city positions, and publish the underlying April 2025 correspondence and related records. We welcome a response from Blades, Strand and the City of Ridgecrest and will add their positions when obtained.

Across the region: reporting shared with nearby newspapers

This Ridgecrest News investigation is the original report. California58 Local has published short, location-aware summaries in nearby community editions within approximately 50 miles of Ridgecrest (straight-line distance). Each edition links back to this article. These regional summaries do not allege wrongdoing by the nearby communities.

Kern County: Inyokern News · Johannesburg News · Randsburg News · California City News · Boron News · Kernville News · Wofford Heights News · Lake Isabella News.

Inyo County: Ballarat News · Darwin News · Olancha News.

San Bernardino County: Searles Valley News.

Ridgecrest News / California58 — independent document-based reporting. Send records, corrections or responses to california58com@gmail.com. No electoral endorsement is made.

Help independent local news grow Your contribution helps us build and sustain community reporting.
Support Ridgecrest News

Choose how to support Ridgecrest News:

Credit / Debit Card via Stripe

Choose an amount from $1. One-time support through the publisher's LINKERNO Stripe account.

Continue with PayPal

Zelle323-677-7643Open Zelle through your bank. Verify the recipient before sending.

Optional reader support. When possible, add “Ridgecrest News” to the payment note. Contributions are not advertised as tax-deductible. Support does not influence editorial decisions.

Ridgecrest News — Your Community Newspaper

Have a correction, news tip, local announcement, or story to submit? Contact our editorial team. All submissions are reviewed before publication.

Contact the Ridgecrest News newsroom →

More from Ridgecrest News

Visit Ridgecrest News →