The Resnicks: Billionaires at the Center of California’s Water Controversy
As wildfires rage across California, a heated debate over water resources has thrust billionaire couple Stewart and Lynda Resnick into the spotlight. The Resnicks, whose $13 billion fortune is built on their agricultural empire, are accused of monopolizing water supplies, sparking outrage among activists and residents alike.
The Resnicks’ Agricultural Empire
Table of Contents
Stewart and Lynda Resnick are the largest private agricultural operators in California, with a sprawling 75,000-hectare footprint in the San Joaquin Valley. Their company, Fantastic Company, is behind household names like Pom Wonderful, Wonderful Pistachios, Fiji Water, and Halos tangerines. But their influence extends far beyond pistachios and pomegranates.
At the heart of the controversy is their control over the Kern Water Bank, a massive 83-square-kilometer reservoir capable of storing up to 1.85 billion cubic meters of water. This resource not only ensures irrigation for their vast farmland but also allows them to resell water to the state during periods of high demand.
“How can a single family control more water than all of Los Angeles, a city of nearly 4 million peopel?” asks Yasha Levine, co-director of the documentary Pistachio Wars. “Their influence on water resources is disproportionate.”
Controversial Contracts and Water Usage
The Resnicks’ dominance over California’s water supply traces back to the 1990s, when they acquired farmland at discounted prices as the state invested heavily in water infrastructure. These strategic moves enabled them to secure long-term water contracts,a critical advantage in a drought-prone region.
A 2016 examination by Mother Jones revealed that the Resnicks’ farms consumed more water in some years than the combined usage of Los Angeles and the Political Influence and Criticism
The Resnicks’ power isn’t limited to agriculture. They have cultivated close ties with California’s political elite, donating generously to the campaigns of governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, and Gavin Newsom. In 2021, they contributed $250,000 to a campaign aimed at preventing Newsom’s impeachment. “Their political power is terrifying,” says Lauren Steiner, an activist and organizer of protests against the Resnicks.“They’re like the Koch brothers of California water. They buy influence and control access to a vital resource.” Critics argue that this financial clout allows the Resnicks to operate with impunity, even as California faces an unprecedented ecological crisis. In response to criticism,the Resnicks have pointed to their philanthropic efforts,which include nearly $2 billion in donations to universities,environmental initiatives,and community organizations in California’s Central Valley. However, these gestures have done little to quell public anger. “Their philanthropy does not mask the ecological impact of their empire,” Levine asserts. “they are profiting from a system they helped shape that is exacerbating California’s environmental problems.” | Aspect | Details | As wildfires and droughts intensify, the Resnicks’ control over California’s water resources has become a flashpoint for public outrage. While their defenders argue that their influence on water prices is limited, critics see their empire as emblematic of a broken system that prioritizes profit over sustainability. For more on the ongoing crisis in Los Angeles, explore our complete coverage of the wildfires and their impact on the region. The Resnicks’ story is a stark reminder of the complex interplay between wealth, power, and environmental stewardship in a state grappling with the consequences of climate change. As wildfires rage across Los Angeles and drought tightens its grip on California, the state’s water crisis has become a flashpoint for public outrage. At the center of this controversy are Stewart and Lynda Resnick, billionaire agricultural magnates whose control over California’s water resources has drawn sharp criticism. To shed light on this complex issue, we sat down with Dr. Emily Carter, a water resource specialist and professor of environmental studies at Stanford University, to discuss the resnicks’ influence, the ecological impact of their empire, and the broader implications for California’s future. senior Editor: Dr. Carter, thank you for joining us. Let’s start with the basics. The Resnicks are frequently enough described as the largest private agricultural operators in California. Can you explain the scale of their empire and how it ties into their control over water resources? Dr.Emily Carter: Absolutely. The Resnicks own approximately 75,000 hectares of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley, making them a dominant force in California agriculture.Their company, the Fantastic Company, produces globally recognized brands like Wonderful Pistachios, Pom Wonderful, and Fiji Water. But what truly sets them apart is their control over the Kern Water Bank, a massive underground reservoir that stores up to 1.85 billion cubic meters of water. This gives them an unparalleled ability to manage water supplies, not just for their own farms but also for resale during droughts. Senior Editor: Critics argue that this level of control is disproportionate.How does their water usage compare to other entities in California? Dr. Emily Carter: It’s staggering. A 2016 report by mother Jones found that in some years,the Resnicks’ farms consumed more water then the combined usage of Los Angeles and the san Francisco Bay Area. That’s a city of nearly 4 million people and a metropolitan area of over 7 million. When you consider that California is a drought-prone region, this level of consumption raises serious ethical and ecological questions. Senior editor: Beyond their agricultural holdings, the Resnicks are known for their political influence. They’ve donated heavily to governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger,Jerry Brown,and Gavin Newsom. How does this financial clout impact water policy in California? Dr. Emily Carter: their political donations are a notable factor.For example, in 2021, they contributed $250,000 to a campaign aimed at preventing Governor newsom’s impeachment. This kind of financial support buys access and influence, allowing the Resnicks to shape policies that favor their interests. Critics argue that this creates a system where profit is prioritized over sustainability, especially during times of ecological crisis. Senior Editor: Do you think their influence extends to water pricing and allocation? Dr. emily Carter: Indirectly, yes. By controlling such a large share of the state’s water resources, they can influence market dynamics. During droughts, they can resell water at high prices, which can drive up costs for municipalities and smaller farmers. This creates a feedback loop where their power and wealth only grow, while others struggle to access a vital resource. senior editor: The Resnicks have also been active philanthropists, donating nearly $2 billion to universities, environmental initiatives, and community organizations. How does this factor into the public’s perception of them? Dr. Emily Carter: Philanthropy can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, their donations have funded critically important research and community programs, particularly in the Central Valley.Conversely, many see this as an attempt to offset criticism of their environmental impact. As one activist put it, “Their philanthropy does not mask the ecological damage caused by their empire.” Senior Editor: Do you think their philanthropic efforts are enough to address the broader issues tied to their business practices? Dr. Emily Carter: Not really.while their donations are commendable, they don’t address the root of the problem: a system that allows a single entity to control such a disproportionate share of a critical resource. True sustainability requires systemic change, not just charitable gestures. Senior Editor: As wildfires and droughts intensify, what do you see as the future of California’s water resources? And what role do the Resnicks play in that future? Dr. Emily Carter: California is at a crossroads.Climate change is exacerbating water scarcity, and the state’s current system of water allocation is unsustainable.The Resnicks’ empire is emblematic of this broken system.Moving forward, we need policies that prioritize equitable access to water and incentivize lasting practices. This will require not just political will but also public pressure to hold powerful entities accountable. Senior Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights. it’s clear that the Resnicks’ story is a microcosm of the larger challenges California faces in balancing wealth, power, and environmental stewardship. Dr. Emily Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical issue, and I hope this conversation sparks further dialogue about how we can create a more sustainable future for California. For more on California’s water crisis and its impact on communities,explore our complete coverage of the ongoing challenges in Los Angeles and beyond.Philanthropy and Public Backlash
Key Points at a Glance
|————————–|—————————————————————————–|
| Net Worth | $13 billion |
| Agricultural Holdings| 75,000 hectares in the San Joaquin Valley |
| Key Brands | Wonderful Pistachios, Pom Wonderful, Fiji Water, Halos, Teleflora |
| Water Control | Majority stake in Kern Water Bank (1.85 billion cubic meters capacity) |
| Political Donations | $250,000 to prevent Gavin Newsom’s impeachment in 2021 |
| Philanthropy | Nearly $2 billion donated to environmental and community initiatives |A Growing Crisis
California’s Water Crisis: A Conversation with Dr. Emily Carter on the Resnicks’ Role and the Fight for Sustainability
The Resnicks’ Agricultural Empire: Power and Control
Political Influence and the Resnicks’ Role in Shaping Policy
Philanthropy and Public Perception
The Future of California’s Water Resources
Key Takeaways
