Regulations Continued from Page 1 the Central Valley is more than 200 acres. “Our farms are interspersed with hous- ing developments and other business- es—golf courses, parks and everything else that could potentially contribute to nitrogen loading into the watersheds,” Mellano said. “The farmer could be grow- ing in the middle of these land uses, yet the assumption is made that the farmer is contributing the nitrogen.” Farmers say they are concerned about the new draft regulations, which add new nitrogen requirements. One challenge, Mellano said, relates to the lack of data on the standard level of nitrogen applied and nitrogen removed after harvest, which are based on crop type. “This (nitrogen level standard) is known for crops like almonds and pistachios, but there’s so many specialty crops grown here in small quantities, it really becomes quite a challenge,” Mellano said. “It would take many years to do all the research to get the nutrient requirements for all these crops.” The requirements proposed in the draft order are in addition to the county’s agricultural water quality program that inspects agricultural operations for com- pliance with existing total maximum dai- ly loads, or TMDLs. The program seeks to prevent pollutants from agricultural
operations from entering the county’s storm drain system and waterways. “We have a problem with the bench- marks that are set here in San Diego County for, say, nitrogen in the water,” said San Diego County farmer Enrico Ferro. “Even pristine, untouched parts of the water system are already at the bench- mark, and once there is any human activi- ty, you’re going to exceed the benchmark, so we’re already set up for failure.” The acceptable nitrogen level in the county is 1 milligram per liter, which is 10 times cleaner than the statewide drinking water standard of 10 milligrams per liter, Mellano said. “If someone purchases water from the district to water their plants and it is at 2 milligrams per liter, for example, it already exceeds the benchmark before that water ever touches the ground, so it is an impossible standard that we are expected to meet,” Mellano said. “We’re expected to basically clean up the water once we buy it. That is one of the funda- mental problems.” In comments sent to the regional board, an affected San Diego County nursery operator questioned the need for the water quality protection plan as proposed in the order, “since most of the items in the plan we already document
and are being inspected by other agen- cies.” This includes inspections and re- porting related to a stormwater program and a hazardous materials program overseen by the county, and pesticide inspection and reporting by the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. The nursery operator added, “We all want to be in compliance, but our com- pany does not have the time nor the man- power to be filling out pages of info repeat- edly for different agencies.” The San Diego County Farm Bureau, which manages the third-party San Diego Region Irrigated Lands Group, provides af- fected members in San Diego, Orange and southern Riverside counties with monitor- ing and reporting services. Ferro, who is chair of the group’s board of directors, said the nonprofit helps farm- ers share the cost of compliance. For indi- viduals working directly with the regional board, he said, compliance costs are exces- sive, between $20,000 and $30,000 annual- ly for testing and reporting. “We are very efficient and have cre- ated a really good system that is afford- able to comply with the ag order,” Ferro said of the irrigated lands group. “But this new ag order might just blow all that out of the water.” Regional board staff “has been very
amenable to working with us,” Mellano said, adding she is concerned enforce- ment agencies do not often understand the impacts on those affected by the reg- ulations. “They have to fulfill their pro- gram because it is the mandate that they are given, but they don’t really recognize what is at stake for the people they are bringing this upon.” Public comments for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board draft order are due May 28. However, regional board staff said last week it plans to recommend the regional board postpone the comment period until the California State Water Resources Control Board convenes on the issue. Last week, the state water board an- nounced plans to convene a second agricultural expert panel to reassess statewide nitrogen requirements. “The state water board has issued pro- posed questions for the second statewide agricultural expert panel and is seeking names or expertise areas of who to put on the panel,” Fisher said. Learn more at www.waterboards.ca.gov/ public_notices/comments/docs/2024/ notice-ag-expert-panel-051324.pdf. (Christine Souza is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.)
Tuesday, June 4, 2024, from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Sheraton Grand Sacramento Rightsizing California for New Growth and Opportunities
The theme "Rightsizing California Agriculture for New Growth and Opportunities" will be discussed, focusing on adapting to labor trends, regulations, increased fruit and vegetable consumption, on- farm technology innovations, and external influences affecting the future of food and agriculture sustainability.
JOIN US
Register to attend in-person or virtually today at Agri-Pulse.com or scan the QR code.
May 22, 2024 Ag Alert 9
Powered by FlippingBook