Two Kern Water Systems Report Years of Uranium Violations as Connection Project Advances

What the records show

Two small water companies near Bakersfield documented uranium violations reaching back years before their planned connection to the city’s water network received a key state approval in 2026.

Their latest annual consumer reports, both dated June 30, 2026, list the uranium violation at Old River Mutual Water Company as ongoing since 2009 and the violation at South Kern Mutual Water Company as ongoing since 2016. Both reports identify consolidation with Bakersfield as the response.

What’s the Scoop with B. Roach compared those disclosures with city and state environmental filings and the administrator’s public updates. Together, the documents establish a long-running water-quality problem and measurable progress toward a replacement supply. They do not establish that construction or household connections have been completed.

What the annual reports actually say

Each system’s 2025 uranium table reports the following figures, in picocuries per liter, a measure of radioactivity:

The reported level is 26.25% above the listed limit: (25.25 minus 20), divided by 20, multiplied by 100. Even the bottom of the reported range is 15% above that limit. These are comparisons of the published figures, not independent laboratory findings or estimates of an individual resident’s health risk. The source tables appear on page 4 of Old River’s report and page 5 of South Kern’s report.

The dates matter. These reports cover 2025 and can include older results. They are not September 2026 tests. South Kern’s report also lists a 2025 range for 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or TCP, from nondetectable to 9.1 parts per trillion, while expressly retaining an ongoing violation status. A low or nondetectable result should therefore not be read as proof that the system’s compliance problem has ended.

A documented project, with distinct approval stages

The city’s April 2025 environmental filing describes two systems in the unincorporated Old River community, each relying on a single well producing water above allowable contaminant levels. The proposed solution would abandon those wells and extend Bakersfield’s water system to the service area.

The next records show separate milestones. A city notice lists project approval on June 25, 2025. The state’s subsequent notice lists its approval on April 1, 2026—280 days later. That interval measures the distance between two recorded decisions; it does not, by itself, establish an improper delay or explain what work occurred between them.

The later state filing identifies approximately 6,000 feet of new water main, 1,500 feet of lateral pipelines, 29 household connections and five fire hydrants. Combined, the listed main and laterals amount to approximately 1.42 miles of pipe. It says the State Water Resources Control Board is funding the project and Bakersfield will carry it out. The notice records approval, not a construction completion date.

Assistance and permanent service are different milestones

Provost & Pritchard jointly administers the two systems. Its January 15, 2026 meeting summary states that both were under do-not-drink notices and reminds residents to contact the administrator if bottled water is needed. The same summary explains that customer water payments support operations and maintenance, while the administrator’s work is funded separately.

The state’s June 2026 Needs Assessment also lists both consolidations as in process. Its administrator table, explicitly covering activity through December 31, 2025, lists the two projects as active. That is evidence of intervention, but not evidence that a permanent replacement supply had reached every household.

The administrator’s community webpage still displayed a do-not-drink heading when reviewed for this article. Because a webpage may lag field conditions, residents should obtain current instructions directly from their water provider or administrator. This review did not independently test water, verify construction on site or establish a current completion date.

Reporting method: This article compares publicly posted primary records. Calculations use the numbers and dates printed in those records. No interviews or new records responses are represented here.