The Produce News
By Ed Boling
September 12, 2012

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has seemingly ignored outreach efforts by commodity groups in California’s San Joaquin Valley as it works through the proposed long-term Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.

The seven-member board heard presentations from staff members at a recent Central Valley Water Board meeting. The day revolved around a draft of rules to monitor groundwater and control discharges of contaminants, including fertilizers and pesticides.

Pamela Creedon, CVWB executive officer, stated that one of the primary goals of the water-monitoring program is to gauge what farmers are doing to

Over 400 people showed up to the meeting out of concerns that this regulation could put them out of business. Several organizations representing Central San Joaquin Valley produce growers presented their objections to the proposed rules, which are set for approval in early 2013.

“There truly is a disconnect between the [CVWB] staff and those in the industry,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League. “The staff is not making the connection. Our industry is not properly at the table for discussion. The goal seems to be the regulation, instead of using the regulation to achieve the goal.”

Mr. Bedwell was part of the commodity panel at the ILRP meeting to provide input to the CVWB. He surmised that there is no confidence in what the board and staff are doing.

Citrus Mutual has had 30 years of regulatory activity and has always been able to collaborate in forming a solution with various state agencies, said Joel Nelson, California Citrus Mutual president.

He added that the San Joaquin citrus industry stands to lose $24 million in water expenses under the current draft of the ILRP.

The ILRP was started in 2003 to prevent agricultural runoff from impairing surface waters, according to the CVWB’s website. Under the new rules, farmers pooled resources and formed water quality coalitions. These coalitions were the primary engine for preventing pollution and improving water quality, according to a July 28, 2010 control board press release. That same press release touted the cooperative efforts and collaborative spirit of the control board.

The Kings River Conservation District has been one of the primary coalitions working to improve water quality and prevent pollution in the San Joaquin Valley.

“We try to create an alternative for the grower to meet the high degree of growth and change in water requirements,” KRCD General Manager David Orth said. “Our whole focus is trying to create a reasonable, balanced program that protects the grower and minimizes the impact on them. The [Central Valley Water] Board is cranking up the enforcement. [The ILRP] is reaching into new territory for the first time in the United States history. We have never tried to regulate ground water quality.”

It appears to KRCD that the CVWB is asking for equity among all involved, but taking a broad-brushed regulatory approach. Mr. Orth does not believe that the pollution problem is as big as the CVWB is representing. The problems are more the result of legacy practices or specific situations.

KRCD also has major problems with the primary report used by the CVWB to determine that agriculture is the primary cause of nitrate contamination. A University of California-Davis report used no new studies and focused solely on legacy practices. The study made no distinction between old and current situations. It also does not distinguish between manure and synthetic fertilizers. Agriculture has made major improvements in both irrigation practices and fertilizer delivery in the past few decades.

Mr. Orth added that he would like to see a more balanced and focused effort. He said that the initial draft estimated a cost to farmers of $120 per acre. During the meeting, the CVWB staff said they dropped the estimate to $21 per acre. This caused the audience to burst into laughter and immediately question the reasoning behind the initial proposed cost and the drastic drop in estimate.

“They have asked for buy-in without any idea of what it would cost,” Mr. Orth added. “The board wants to penalize responsible parties to raise funds to spend on cleaning up the problem. There are no responsible parties in the current situation.”

Original source