Interior IG Investigates Bernhardt for California Water Decision Benefiting Former Client Westlands

The Interior Department Inspector General opened an investigation into Secretary David Bernhardt’s California water policy decisions that benefited Westlands Water District, his former lobbying client. The investigation examined whether Bernhardt violated ethics agreements by influencing new environmental rules for water deliveries to California’s San Joaquin Valley via the Central Valley Project. In February 2019, Acting Secretary Bernhardt reportedly directed David Murillo, the Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation, to roll back environmental protections for delta smelt and winter-run Chinook salmon in the San Francisco Bay Delta region. Bernhardt served as a lobbyist for Westlands until 2016, the year before he joined Interior as Deputy Secretary.

Background

The Interior IG’s office received seven complaints from various complainants alleging potential conflict of interest and other violations by Bernhardt. On April 15, 2019 - just four days after Senate confirmation - the IG opened a formal investigation into alleged conflict of interest violations. The water policy changes weakened protections for endangered fish species to increase water deliveries to agricultural interests in the San Joaquin Valley, directly benefiting Westlands Water District, one of the largest irrigation districts in the country and Bernhardt’s former client.

Environmental groups and California officials strongly opposed the policy changes, arguing they prioritized agricultural profits over endangered species protection and violated the Endangered Species Act. The timing of Bernhardt’s policy directive while serving as Acting Secretary, before his formal confirmation hearing where senators could question him about the decision, raised additional concerns about deliberate avoidance of oversight. Investigators ultimately found the conflict of interest claims “unsubstantiated” and cleared Bernhardt of impropriety, though the investigation took over two years to complete.

Significance

The Westlands investigation exemplified how former lobbyists used Cabinet positions to benefit their previous clients while maintaining technical compliance with ethics rules. Bernhardt’s ability to influence water policy affecting his former client - despite being on his “conflict card” - revealed the inadequacy of recusal procedures when officials had dozens of potential conflicts. The four-day gap between confirmation and IG investigation launch demonstrated how obvious the conflict appeared to watchdog groups and members of Congress. The eventual clearance by investigators, despite the apparent conflict, illustrated how ethics rules often prove unenforceable when officials navigate gray areas and maintain plausible deniability. The policy changes prioritizing agricultural water delivery over endangered species protection reversed decades of environmental policy to benefit a specific former client, regardless of the IG’s ultimate findings.