But after much deliberation, the board decided to go back to and make revisions to their order.
Now, a second draft from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is ready and waiting for public comment. Before the first round of talks, farms were abuzz with rumors about changes that could hit irrigators hard. Farmers on the Central Coast had – up until then – operated on something called a “conditional waiver,” essentially freeing them for individual monitoring of water runoff from farms in exchange for group monitoring.
When the first draft was released, collective monitoring appeared to be on the chopping block. Replaced by an individual monitoring requirement that would allow the board to see how much each farm was contributing to pollution in the ecosystem – pollution the board’s staff said was reaching dangerous levels.
The word spreading around the farming community was bleak. Growers said small furrows, tire tracks and puddles might be susceptible to testing, or irrigation ditches would have to meet the same requirements as a viable stream. They argued that individual monitoring would be an economic burden in an already hard time, and giving out the exact amounts of fertilizer and pesticides they used would be giving up a trade secret. There were even some who said the board’s assessment of the environmental damage was incorrect and their testing was flawed.
The board rebutted these charges and worked to speak with the agriculture community by beginning a campaign of public outreach that included multi-day meetings attended by hundreds of people. Through the process, board members and staff alike said they were trying to find a new agreement that was “reasonable,” while maintaining action needed to be taken to better regulate runoff.
In the latest summary of the order, water board officials said that “Agricultural discharges are a major cause of water pollution in the Central Coast region.” The summary went on to say that the impacts of that pollution affected thousands of people, large sections of rivers and were likely to worsen if nothing was done. The board stressed that its highest priority was the “protection of human health and drinking water.”
When the discussions had ended, the board directed their staff to once again meet with representatives from both the farming and environmental sides of the argument to see if a better solution could be drawn up. For the second time, the 2004 waiver was extended to give the board more time to construct the new order. The move was well-received by farmers who said the original waiver didn’t have enough time to prove its effectiveness.
According to the board, the waiver is only a temporary solution and they are still working on another order to replace it. The second draft was released in mid-November. This draft complied suggestions of speakers at the public hearings, as well as the discussions the board’s staff had with groups from both sides of the debate.
Although some have said those discussions were lacking. According to Richard Quandt, Growers-Shippers Association president, agriculture interest – as a whole – only had one meeting with water board staff since July, and that meeting only lasted a few hours. He said there was a lack of cooperation and communication between the water board staff and Ag industry.
The new draft ups regulation and does away with individual monitoring for some farms, but also adds in a new tier system with three different levels of regulation, depending on how much water a growing operation discharges, among other things. In the summary to the latest draft, board staff write that the new order will “adjust the level or degree of regulation for agriculture to better match the degree of regulation compared to other Water Board programs based on the relative impacts to water quality.” According to the draft, this adjustment will bring irrigators and farms in line with other industries and programs that contribute to runoff.
Goals for this version of the draft include “resolving” pollution associated with irrigated agriculture, complying with legal requirements for water quality and setting out targets for reaching those goals.
“The Central Coast Water Board’s highest priorities for a new Ag order continue to include protecting drinking water supplies for cities and small rural communities, and protecting rivers and creeks that support fish and wildlife like the California Sea Otter, endangered Steelhead, and threatened red-legged frog,” said water board staffer Angela Schroeter in an email.
Quandt said the new order would face “massive opposition,” from agriculture and that the industry was putting their support behind a yet unreleased alternative plan. Despite the inclusion of a tiered system in the new draft, he said the new standards were unachievable. To Quandt, one of the most objectionable pieces of the new order is individual monitoring that will be required for all but those farms in tier one.
To fit into this tier, farms cannot use certain types of pesticides, must not be with in 1,000 feet of a water body that has been listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act, must have less than 1,000 acres of irrigated land and cannot grow crops with a “high nitrate loading potential.” Those crops include beets, broccoli, many green leafy vegetables, onions and strawberries, among others.
The second tier is a more complicated pick-your-poison type of breakdown. Farms can be considered for the second tier if they are located within 1,000 feet of an impaired water body but don’t use the listed pesticides and have fewer than 1,000 acres. They could also be considered if they use pesticides but don’t exceed the size and water proximity conditions, or if they exceed the acreage limit but none of the others.
If a farm exceeds two or more of the conditions, it is then bumped into tier three with the most regulation. Those farms that fall into this group require collective water body monitoring, individual ground water monitoring, individual wetland photo-monitoring and individual surface water discharge monitoring. Tier three also includes annual nitrate loading risk evaluations and a two-year target for reducing pesticides in nearby water bodies.
Tier one only requires collective water body and ground water monitoring and tier two stands in the middle, without the requirements for individual surface water discharge or nitrate load monitoring.
“Tiered requirements place the most stringent waste discharge control, monitoring and reporting requirements on those operations that pose the highest threat to water quality. The draft Ag order also provides for flexibility and alternative methods to comply with requirements, while taking steps to resolve surface water and groundwater pollution in the areas where it is most needed,” said Schroeter.
In a debate where the last draft of the order was seen as too much by agriculture interest and not enough from drinking water and environmental groups, there is sure to be an involved discussion over the latest draft. The water board plans to hear the public’s input in Watsonville on March 17, 2011, some 14 days before the current waver expires.
Comments on the draft are due by Jan. 3, 2011, and can be emailed to AgOrder@waterboards.ca.gov.
For more information on the draft order and for more information about the Central Cost Regional Water Quality Control Board, visit www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/.