The Water Monopoly Myth: The Resnicks Don’t Own California’s Water

Debunking the Myth

The social media outcry has reached fever pitch, driven by the oft-repeated claim that Stewart and Lynda Resnick own most of California’s water. This assertion, however, is as factually barren as the Central Valley during a summer drought. While the Resnicks do hold significant agricultural water rights, these amount to a mere drop in the vast reservoir of California’s total water supply. The notion that they exert monopolistic control over the state’s water resources crumbles under scrutiny.

To understand the scale of California’s water system, one must first grasp the magnitude of its water sources. The state relies on a mix of surface water, groundwater and imported water from sources such as the Colorado River. California’s groundwater basins alone have a storage capacity exceeding 850 million acre-feet—more than 566 times the capacity of the Kern Water Bank, the underground reservoir with which the Resnicks are associated.

The Resnicks’ agribusiness empire, The Wonderful Company, owns approximately 180,000 acres of farmland, predominantly in the San Joaquin Valley. Their farms rely on water from various sources, including water districts that administer state and federal water deliveries. However, their total consumption of water is estimated to be less than 1% of the state’s overall water usage. When compared to the massive withdrawals by municipal suppliers, hydroelectric facilities and other agricultural operations, the Resnicks’ water footprint is relatively modest.

Critics frequently point to the Resnicks’ ownership stake in the Kern Water Bank as evidence of their disproportionate influence over California’s water supply. While it is true that they hold a 57% stake in the bank, context is crucial. The Kern Water Bank has a maximum storage capacity of 1.5 million acre-feet. This pales in comparison to the state’s total water storage capacity in reservoirs and aquifers. Furthermore, the water stored in the Kern Water Bank is not “owned” in the traditional sense—it is a managed resource shared among multiple stakeholders, including public water agencies. Water banks like Kern function as reserves to store surplus water during wet years for use in drier periods. The water within these banks is still subject to state water laws and allocation regulations, preventing any single entity from exercising unchecked control. Moreover, other private entities have far larger water holdings than the Resnicks, including the J.G. Boswell Company, John Vidovich and Sandridge Partners, each of whom controls vast tracts of agricultural land and associated water rights, dwarfing the Resnicks’ footprint in California’s broader water economy.

California’s water rights system is a labyrinthine structure governed by a combination of riparian and appropriative rights. While some large agricultural enterprises hold substantial water entitlements, the majority of the state’s water resources are controlled by public agencies. The California Department of Water Resources oversees the State Water Project, which delivers water to over 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation manages the Central Valley Project, providing water to cities and agricultural users. Municipal water districts, such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, distribute water to urban centers. Additionally, other major agricultural operators in the Westlands Water District collectively use far more water than the Resnicks’ farms.

The fixation on the Resnicks as the ultimate water barons stems from a broader narrative about wealth and resource control. It is a convenient storyline that pits wealthy agriculturalists against the broader populace, but it ignores the fundamental realities of California’s water governance. While the Resnicks have undeniably benefited from their investments in water infrastructure, they operate within the same legal and regulatory framework as other major agricultural and municipal water users. Furthermore, the narrative often disregards the fact that the Resnicks have invested in conservation efforts, including funding groundwater recharge projects and supporting sustainable agriculture initiatives. These actions, while perhaps motivated by self-interest, nevertheless contribute to the broader effort of water sustainability in California.

The claim that the Resnicks “own” California’s water is a distortion of reality. Their water usage constitutes a fraction of the state’s total consumption, and their control over the Kern Water Bank does not equate to a monopoly over the state’s water resources. California’s water crisis is a complex issue driven by environmental factors, regulatory challenges and competing demands from agriculture, municipalities and industry. Addressing these challenges requires an honest assessment of the facts rather than sensationalist scapegoating. The Resnicks may be powerful, but they are far from the omnipotent overlords of California’s water supply.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Trump’s Phone Call Changes Everything – Country Reveals Major Decision