Quasi-Private Ownership of the Kern Water Bank: How a secretive 1994 deal led to the privatization of a public water reserve in Kern County, California
by Munachim Akanno
Site Description:
The Kern Water Bank is a large underground drought reserve located in San Joaquin Valley, Kern County, California. It is called a bank because several surface water plants contribute water to renew the bank when there is ample surface water so that they can use water from the bank when the region experiences a period of drought which it is prone to; the last drought happened in 2020 and lasted about 3 years. The issue of drought is so prominent in the area that the creation of the water bank is linked to a 7 year drought that happened in 1995. The Kern Water Bank was originally acquired and developed by the state with about $74 million in taxpayer dollars and was expected to serve the public. However, in a secretive deal made in 1994, the Monterey Agreement, state officials transferred the ownership to the Kern Water Bank authority effectively privatizing it. Today, the bank is dominated by the Resnick family’s Wonderful Company which controls 60% of its storage. This paper aims to highlight the inequalities that arise as a result of the semi-private ownership of the Kern Water Bank and how the influence of the private large scale farmers creates an inequality in the quality and quantity of water supplied especially during droughts. It focuses on how the 1994 Monterey agreement created an environment where large corporations profit from the water scarcity while neighboring, largely Latino, communities suffer by paying higher water costs for contaminated water and personal, shallower wells fail due to localized drawdown (lowering of the water table).
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut diam quam nulla porttitor massa id. Elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla. Orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Purus semper eget duis at tellus at urna. Diam maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu. Ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas. Quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin. Consectetur adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant. Cras fermentum odio eu feugiat pretium nibh ipsum consequat nisl. Lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa. Luctus accumsan tortor posuere ac. Porttitor eget dolor morbi non arcu. Maecenas pharetra convallis posuere morbi leo urna molestie. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. In iaculis nunc sed augue. Suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor.
Felis eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus. At elementum eu facilisis sed odio. Eu facilisis sed odio morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. Habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus sit amet. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod elementum nisi quis eleifend. Velit dignissim sodales ut eu sem integer. Morbi tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur. Aliquam eleifend mi in nulla posuere sollicitudin aliquam. Nunc congue nisi vitae suscipit. Convallis tellus id interdum velit laoreet id. Turpis in eu mi bibendum neque egestas. Magna fermentum iaculis eu non diam phasellus vestibulum. In cursus turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus sit.
Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse. Eros donec ac odio tempor orci. Nullam non nisi est sit amet facilisis magna etiam tempor. Platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper. Eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec sagittis aliquam. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta. Eget dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget mi proin sed. Nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor eu augue. Pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et. Pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet.
Pharetra massa massa ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor magna. Mattis nunc sed blandit libero volutpat. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget. Gravida neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Aenean et tortor at risus viverra adipiscing at. Quisque non tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris. Ultrices in iaculis nunc sed augue lacus. Quam elementum pulvinar etiam non. Felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas. Sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis rhoncus. Ac ut consequat semper viverra. Volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas fringilla phasellus faucibus scelerisque. Urna condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor. Erat nam at lectus urna duis convallis convallis. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas sed tempus urna et pharetra. Pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas. Interdum velit euismod in pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus. Est velit egestas dui id. Pellentesque id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh. Id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh nisl.
Primary Sources:
“The Monterey Agreement: Statement of Principles by the State Water Contractors and the State of California, Department of Water Resources for Potential Amendments to the State Water Supply Contracts.” The Department of Water Resources, 1994. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31210018957629.
This is a government document by California’s Department of Water Resources. It is a foundational primary source because it is the legal record of the “closed-door negotiation” where contractors and state officials rewrote California’s water allocation rules, an issue that is still contentious today. It is central to the disputes over the current management of the Kern Water Bank.
Kennedy, David N. Oral History Interview with David Norman Kennedy: Director, California Department of Water Resources, 1983-1998 : August 28, September 16, October 17, 21, 28, and November 18, 2002; the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, California. With Charles Wollenberg and State Government Oral History Program. 2002.
https://archives.cdn.sos.ca.gov/oral-history/pdf/oh-kennedy-david.pdf
This is a transcript of an interview with David Norman Kennedy who was the director of the California Department of Water Resources when the Monterey Agreement was signed. This gives me a closer story of what happened after the agreement was signed from the perspective of someone involved in its signing. A skim over the transcript narrows the most relevant conversation to pages 184 to 190.
Kern Water Bank Authority. Kern Water Bank Authority Conservation and Storage Project Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento, CA: ICF, January 2018.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pTF87ZxMc9QqcJuqJpsLWgku_xEOEKQD/view?usp=sharing
This is a report made by the Kern Water Bank Authority retrieved from the California Public Library Archives. It is a site specific report detailing the infrastructure and drawbacks of the bank. It would be helpful because it provides data that shows the shortcoming of the bank.
Central Delta Water Agency. “Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the ‘Monterey Amendment to the State Water Project Contracts (Including Kern Water Bank Transfer) and Associated Actions as Part of a Settlement Agreement) (Monterey Plus).'” Letter to Delores Brown, January 14, 2008.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFm8HkpS0JXoviq5XbRzTzIAfu7Hv1yC/view?usp=sharing
This is an email commenting on the draft environmental impact report. It was retrieved from the archives by a librarian at the California Public Library and is temporarily made available through google drive. The comments highlight certain failures of the draft and although these failures are measured against a rubric, through them, we can see certain biases and key points to look for in the actual report. These comments are particularly useful because they make connections to legal precedents that are not easily made from the report alone.
California Department of Water Resources. Final Environmental Impact Report: Monterey Amendment to the State Water Project Contracts (Including Kern Water Bank Transfer) and Associated Actions as Part of a Settlement Agreement (Monterey Plus). Volume I. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources, February 2010.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1duiFGWds7NzXuxXBXzSyNtrwTK3itQ2H/view?usp=sharing
This is a report published by the California Department of Water Resources retrieved from the California Public Library. It is a follow up to the letter addressed in the previous source. It is a report that aims to provide the state’s justification for the 1994 Monterey Agreement specifically dismissing concerts about groundwater quality.
Primary Source Analysis
The Central Delta Water Agency comment letter was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources to review the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey Plus agreement – an expansion of the 1994 Monterey Agreement. It proposes revisions to the EIR draft based on legal rubrics that were not met and claims that lack sufficient data. The comment letter suggests that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) fails to present conclusive findings and does not fully address several pressing environmental issues, resulting in an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the bank’s effects. This is especially important for an environmental justice paper because gaps in impact analysis can hide unequal risks to communities that already face environmental and political disadvantage.
The discussions about the impact of the Kern Water Bank are concentrated in parts 3 and 5, though earlier sections highlight a pattern of non-compliance with legal mandates like the Watershed Protection Act and CEQA guidelines. Focusing on the impact analysis, the author claims that the prominent issue of water levels in the South Delta was not thoroughly discussed as it should have been, considering previous concerns raised in section 4b. In section 5a, the report claims compliance with agriculture salinity standards but fails to discuss how it achieved that, especially since those standards were previously violated. The author also claims that the report deliberately withholds information to further its own goals; this is shown in section 5b where it fails to even consider the project’s impacts on water levels in the southern Delta, an omission that ignores a “historic and ongoing problem” and prevents a thorough discussion of how the project might “exacerbate” local water scarcity. This pattern of informational absence continues in section 5d, where the agency asserts that the state “failed to adequately disclose” its reasons for refusing to reduce “Table A” water allocations, which the author frames as an “institutional mirage” used to support growth while hiding the true lack of physical water. Finally, the letter identifies a major procedural gap in the cumulative analysis, noting that “no significance determination was made” regarding flow changes in the Delta, a strategic failure that effectively conceals the “considerable” environmental burden placed on local ecosystems by the project’s increased exports.
Secondary Sources:
Sivas, Deborah A., Molly Loughney Melius, Linda Sheehan, John Ugai, and Heather Kryczka. “California Water Governance for the 21st Century.” Stanford Law School Environment & Natural Resources Law and Policy Program Report, 2017. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Water-Paper-3-10-17_REVISED-FOR-FINAL-CLINIC-PUB.pdf
This is a report published by the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic detailing the failures of the California Water System and focusing on policies and regulations that led to these failures.
This source would give me an understanding into the regulations that govern the water supply in California. It discusses the 1994 Monterey Amendment that privatized the Kern water Bank and discusses how that privatization favored industrial agribusinesses over public access. It explains how that ‘favor’ was in the form of priority access and allowing the businesses to resell the water to the state at an inflated price during periods of demand. Through case studies, it shows how the water bank has lost the trust of the people and advocates for making water a public good as opposed to a commodified property.
Garrison, Isaiah. “The Story Behind the Kern Water Bank.” Valley Ag Voice, June 30, 2025. https://www.valleyagvoice.com/the-story-behind-the-kern-water-bank/.
This is a blog post by a news network catered to people in agriculture and it tries to give a broader perspective on the function of the Kern Water Bank.
This pose gives a comprehensive view on what the Kern Water Bank is. It explains the original purpose of the land and how the bank has stayed, strayed or changed from its initial purpose. It walks through its initial founding in the 1800’s and how the ownership of the property has been shifted through different organizations under different names. This gives me a strong historical timeline of the banks and allows me to better understand its importance.
Kiparsky, Michael, Kathleen Miller, Goulden Phoebe, Anita Milman, and Dave Owen. “Groundwater Recharge for a Regional Water Bank: Kern Water Bank, Kern County, California.” Case Studies in the Environment (Berkeley, United States) 5, no. 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2021.1223400.
This is a peer reviewed journal article by the University of California discussing the governance and mechanics of the Kern Water Banks.
This journal article gives insights into how the Kern Water Bank is managed. It is a comprehensive case study that details the different aims of the Bank and how it measures up to those aims. It again explains the history of the Bank but also discusses the mechanics of groundwater recharge that the Bank depends on. Additionally, it thoroughly explains the Bank’s management and how effective it is in its goals, highlighting recent drought cycles in the area like the 2011-2017 megadrought.
Image Analysis:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut diam quam nulla porttitor massa id. Elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla. Orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Purus semper eget duis at tellus at urna. Diam maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu. Ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas. Quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin. Consectetur adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant. Cras fermentum odio eu feugiat pretium nibh ipsum consequat nisl. Lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa. Luctus accumsan tortor posuere ac. Porttitor eget dolor morbi non arcu. Maecenas pharetra convallis posuere morbi leo urna molestie. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. In iaculis nunc sed augue. Suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor.
Felis eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus. At elementum eu facilisis sed odio. Eu facilisis sed odio morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. Habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus sit amet. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod elementum nisi quis eleifend. Velit dignissim sodales ut eu sem integer. Morbi tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur. Aliquam eleifend mi in nulla posuere sollicitudin aliquam. Nunc congue nisi vitae suscipit. Convallis tellus id interdum velit laoreet id. Turpis in eu mi bibendum neque egestas. Magna fermentum iaculis eu non diam phasellus vestibulum. In cursus turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus sit.
Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse. Eros donec ac odio tempor orci. Nullam non nisi est sit amet facilisis magna etiam tempor. Platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper. Eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec sagittis aliquam. Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta. Eget dolor morbi non arcu risus quis varius quam quisque. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget mi proin sed. Nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor eu augue. Pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et. Pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. Laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet.
Pharetra massa massa ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor magna. Mattis nunc sed blandit libero volutpat. Nec ultrices dui sapien eget. Gravida neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Aenean et tortor at risus viverra adipiscing at. Quisque non tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris. Ultrices in iaculis nunc sed augue lacus. Quam elementum pulvinar etiam non. Felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas. Sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis rhoncus. Ac ut consequat semper viverra. Volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas fringilla phasellus faucibus scelerisque. Urna condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor. Erat nam at lectus urna duis convallis convallis. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas sed tempus urna et pharetra. Pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas. Interdum velit euismod in pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus. Est velit egestas dui id. Pellentesque id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh. Id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh nisl.
Consequat semper viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit. Ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra accumsan in. Dignissim diam quis enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Erat nam at lectus urna duis convallis convallis tellus. Risus at ultrices mi tempus imperdiet nulla malesuada pellentesque elit. Turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere morbi leo. Nulla facilisi etiam dignissim diam quis enim lobortis. Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies. Est ante in nibh mauris cursus. Massa sed elementum tempus egestas sed sed risus. Augue ut lectus arcu bibendum at varius. Neque viverra justo nec ultrices dui sapien eget mi proin. Non diam phasellus vestibulum lorem sed risus ultricies. Venenatis cras sed felis eget velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur. Tristique et egestas quis ipsum suspendisse. Facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui. Non nisi est sit amet facilisis magna. Scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus. Bibendum at varius vel pharetra vel turpis nunc.
Data Analysis:
Map showing Kern county with the Drinking Water Non-Compliance Index
Map showing Kern County with the Supplemental Demographic Index
Map showing Kern county with the Household Income Index
The privatization of the Kern Water Bank is an environmental justice issue because it shifted control over a major public water resource into the hands of a powerful few with monetary interests. This is an analysis of the environmental factors and the socio-economic indexes of Kern County to highlight the correlation between them. The data was obtained using the EJScreen site hosted by the Public Environmental Data Partners and was done by overlaying different map filters and reading through the more detailed report about the area. I focused on the drinking water non-compliance as it aligns with the subject of this report. I then compared that information with the various socioeconomic indicators to look for patterns. Through this, I aim to show that the privatization of the Kern Water Bank is an environmental justice issue because it affects vulnerable communities at a disproportionally high level.
As mentioned earlier, there are several environmental factors but the drinking water non-compliance was particularly concerning. Kern county is in the 97th percentile of drinking water non-compliance in the state and 77th in the country making it important for this paper. This suggests that water quality and regulatory compliance are already a concern in this county. Additionally, the particular matter value is also high, it is in the 91st percentile in the state and the 98th percentile nationwide. Other particularly high environmental values are the ozone value and the diesel particulate matter. Collectively, this tells the story of a hot environment that has a problem with delivering safe drinking water in addition to air pollutants likely coming from incomplete combustion of nearby ignition engines.
The socioeconomic data shows the people living in Kern County are also relatively vulnerable. The report shows that 43% of residents are low income compared to the California average of 28% and the US average of 30%. It also shows that 9% of residents live in limited English -speaking households with a majority of those households being Spanish speakers. This is important as language barriers makes it harder for communities to access public information and contribute to political decision making. It also shows that 69% of residents are people of color and 55% of them are Hispanic. This is higher than the state average and 3 times higher than the national average. It is another valuable point because historically, minorities have been marginalized and experienced environmental racism. Other vulnerabilities are the unemployment rate and the educational rate which are both above national averages. This means that the environmental burdens in Kern County are occurring in a place where people can be racially marginalized, are economically vulnerable and in some cases, excluded from systems of power because of the language barrier.
When the environmental and socioeconomic data are considered together, the environmental justice implications become much clearer. The central pattern is that high environmental burdens like drinking water non-compliance, PM2.5, ozone and diesel matter overlap with a population that is disproportionately low income, heavily Hispanic and more likely to live in limited English speaking households. In other words, the country’s environmental risks are not falling on a population with equal access to political power, economic security or legal resources. Applying the different filters to the map shows a correlation between the low income areas and the places with the highest amount of drinking water non-compliance which could support the broader claim that the privatization was concentrated among the wealthy and institutionally powerful water actors.
Overall, the data suggests the privatization of the Kern Water Banks can be understood as part of a larger pattern of environmental inequality particularly against the ethnic minority and the poor. These factors were greatly compounded by the suburbanization efforts following World War II which allowed white people to buy homes and build intergenerational wealth and implemented red lining laws which pushed away everyone else. Kern County’s high levels of drinking water non-compliance and air pollution, combined with its large low-income and Hispanic population, make it a strong example of how environmental injustice often works through the unequal distribution of both resources and risk.