Farm Bureau Policies 2022 (3) Federal fundingmust beadequate todevelopsite-specific in- formation, technical assistance, andcost sharing for local programs. (4) CleanWater Act regulations shouldnot infringe onproperty rights; should not result in unfundedmandates for state and local governments; and should be subject to cost/benefit and risk as- sessment analysis. (5) Limits on agricultural grant and/or cost share programs should be removed or minimized. (6) Implementation of the federal CleanWater Act should not alter federal or statewater rights andwater allocation systems and should encourage state control over these programs. The author- ity for determining impaired waters, establishing standards and criteria, and developing and implementing appropriate response programs and plans should remain with the appropriate local entity and be based on sound science that proves they will have a positive result.
must only be held responsible under a TMDL for implementing recommendedmanagement practices, and not for guaranteeing the ability of such practices to achieve TMDL load allocations. TMDL implementation plans must recognize the complexities of nonpoint source pollution and the experimental nature of non- point source management andmust not penalize landmanagers who undertake good faith efforts to control nonpoint sources on their lands. No source, whether point or nonpoint source, should bepenalized for failure to achieve loadorwasteloadallocations or to attain a TMDL within themandated time limits, if the owner or manager of such sourcehasmade reasonable, good faithefforts to control suchsource. TMDL implementationplansmustmaintaina sound balance between thewater quality improvement goals and economic improvement goals of the people and communities in TMDL-affected watersheds, since the ultimate goal of improving the quality of the human environment requires recognition that a healthy economy is essential to a healthy environment. TMDL at- tainment timelinesmust not be rigidbutmust allowfor adjustment if economically feasible pollution controls are not available or if recessionsor otheruncontrollableevents impede the implementa- tion of more stringent controls. Agricultural nonpoint drainage should not be restricted by TMDL implementationwhen theneed forTMDLregulationresults froma reduction in an assimilative capacity of the waterbody that is caused by non-agricultural processes. (00/Rev. 2013) No. 321 Watershed Planning We support local, voluntary watershedmanagement planning efforts as tools for theenhancement andprotectionofwater quality andother natural resources in theStateof California. All regulatory programs for theenhancement andprotectionofwater qualityand other natural resources should be based on and include funding for anaccurateanalysisof currentwaterqualityconditions (current baseline analyses). Implementation of all watershed planning efforts should oc- cur through a voluntary approach. Sufficient funding should be provided to support broad-based educational outreach, technical assistance, and scientific evaluation, including current baseline analysis.Weencourageagricultural producers tovoluntarilypartic- ipate inwatershed planning activities to protect water quality and other natural resources andmake further regulationunnecessary. Beforebeginning anywatershedprogramthat increases regula- tion or cost of agricultural activities or imposesmandates on local governments or individual landowners related to water quality improvements, theappropriate federal, stateor local governmental entity shall prepare an accurate analysis of current water qual- ity conditions (current baseline analysis) for the water body in question. The current baseline analysis should evaluate the exist- ing conditions in the watershed and identify any water quality impairments using scientific methods and quantitative data. The current baseline analysis should also document past improve- ments already made and weather events or geologic conditions that contribute to the water’s impairment. After establishinga scientifically soundcurrent baseline, theap- propriate agency in conjunctionwith affected landowners should identify goals for improvement that are reasonable and reflect the real and actual uses of the water body in question. Governmental watershed planning efforts with a regulatory impact onagricultural landowners should, at aminimum, include: (1) Notice to all affected landowners; (2) A current baseline analysis based on sound science of the identified impairment(s); (3) A cost-benefit analysis; (4) Substantial agricultural landowner involvement in the development of the program in consultation with other appropriate stakeholders; (5)Theconfidentialityof individual resourcemanagementplans prepared in conjunctionwith a watershed program;
government shouldprovidedueprocess and compensation to the exact degree that an owner’s property has beendiminishedby the government’s action. (00/Rev. 2013) No. 322 Waste Discharge Permits National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dischargepermits or state “wastedischarge requirements” should be issued to operators only. If further financial responsibility is requiredby thepermit issuingagency, performancebondsor other assurances shouldbe requiredof theoperator, rather thannaming non-operating parties to the permit. An exemption from the fees for waste discharge permits should be granted for operators who are not causing pollution discharges. The Environmental ProtectionAgency should increase the size limits for exemptions fromNPDESpermit requirements toaccom- modateCaliforniaaquacultureoperations appropriate topollution discharge standards. (Rev. 2001) No. 323
(7) Regulatory provisions regarding the release of water from fields should only come to bear at the point where the drain wa- ter enters a public waterway. Recycling water through closed irrigation systems, be they single or multiple systems and/or public or private, should not be considered a release of water into a public water system. We support increased research by USDA, Land Grant universities, and private enterprise to study chemical migration and interaction with groundwater. We sup- port research to determine water quality benefits related to ag- ricultural production. (8) We endorse appropriate best management practices as an alternative to numerical standards tomore effectively address the point and nonpoint sources of pollution which vary greatly on a regional watershed basis. These management practices should be developed based on sound science that proves that they will produce a positive outcome without any adverse re-directed im- pacts. Implementationdecisionsmust bemade locallyandmust be financiallypractical for landowners toapply. Farmandagricultural operations should be provided assurances where they are imple- menting thesemanagement practices. (9) The state should control nonpoint source pollution through the state’s three-tiered nonpoint source management plan. Tier 1 is the self-determined implementation of management prac- tices. Tier 2 is the regulatory-encouraged implementation of management practices through the use of Management Agency Agreements betweenother agencieswith the appropriate regula- tory authority (i.e., Department of Pesticide Regulation for pesti- cide use, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for timber harvest activities) or the waiver of waste discharge requirements based on specified conditions. Tier 3 is the issuance of waste discharge requirements for individuals or specified groups of dischargers. In every instance, the least stringent tier of enforce- ment should be employed before advancing to the next level of enforcement. Management practices recommended in any tier shouldbe based, to themaximumextent practical, on technically and economically feasible control measures. Implementation of the nonpoint source management plan and management prac- tices needs to reflect flexibility for changing environmental and economic conditions. (10) Total MaximumDaily Loads (TMDLs), if required under Section303(d) of theCleanWater Act, shall not includeTMDLs for waterbodies impaired only by nonpoint sources. In the event that a TMDL is prepared for agricultural nonpoint source pollution in any waterbody, the TMDL shall be based on reliable monitoring data acquired from the impaired waterbody, in conformity with currently accepted scientific principles. Any load or waste load allocation should be proportional to the actual discharge from the affected source or category of sources. No source or category of sources should be subjected to disproportionate restrictions to offset the inability of other sources or categories of sources to achieve their proportionate share of a TMDL. Implementation plans for TMDLs must be developed and approved by the State and to the extent practicable, include stakeholder involvement. Nonpoint sourcemanagementmust be left exclusively to the states because it involves land use management issues properly within the sovereign authority of the state, not the federal government. Regulatory requirements should not place responsibility on agri- culturewater owners orwater users for pollutants or impairments that already exist in the water. Merely concentrating pre-existing water components throughprocesses suchas evapo-transpiration should not constitute the creation of a water quality impairment. Any implementation plan for nonpoint sources must conform to the State Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Because land managersmust relyon the expertiseof professional advisors inde- terminingappropriatemanagement practices toaddressnonpoint sources on their lands, because the determination of appropriate management practices is at this time still an experimental sci- ence, and because even the most thoroughly tested and reliable management practices can be overwhelmed by uncontrollable natural events, suchas rainfall, floods anddroughts, landmanagers
Agricultural Representation on State and Regional Water Boards
The membership of the State Water Resources Control Board andRegionalWater QualityControl Boards should include voting representation of agricultural interests. EachBoardmember shouldbeappointedbasedondemonstrat- ed interest andknowledgeofwater quality, water pollutioncontrol and prevention, water resource management, and experiential knowledge of beneficial uses. Boardmembers shouldbe required to gain a broad understanding of the contributions of agriculture to theenvironment andeach region’snonpublic economic vitality. Thepool of candidates eligible toserveonStateandRegionalWater Boards should be expanded by dispensing with the 10-percent NPDES Income Rule. Board members should be able to vote on all issues presentedby revising conflict of interest rules to conform with the Political ReformAct. (Rev. 2017)
Natural Resources
No. 351 Environmental Policy and Procedure
We support the wise use of our resources. Agriculture must use all practical means to maintain the healthy environment on which it depends. Environmental regulations must be based on peer-reviewed, scientific evidence. Agriculture should not bear a disproportionate burden of meeting environmental regulations. We are concerned by the erosion of individual rights in envi- ronmental litigation and in particular with the lack of a require- ment that intent be proven by the accuser. These protections are grounded in the United States and California constitutions and are fundamental to the American system of justice. The rules of evidence, burdens of proof, and other procedural safeguards for the rights of the accused that apply in criminal prosecutions and civil suits related to violations of other laws must be applied with equal force in litigation alleging violation of environmental laws. Federal and state environmental regulatory agencies should be required to study all impacts of any regulation they propose whichwill affect government, industry or agriculture, before such regulation is adopted. Those affected by any regulation imposed should have the right of a hearing and appeal. Local government entities with enforcement responsibilities should have authority to apply reasonable tolerances in consideration of local condi- tions. (Rev. 2000) No. 352 Environmental Regulations Federal and state agencies fail toconsider adequately the loss of industry, agricultural land and open space that occurs as regula- tions are adopted. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and relevant state statutes, agencies should give greater consideration to economic impacts as they relate to the areas di- rectlyaffectedby the regulations. Inaddition, government agencies shouldbe required toconsider thecumulative impactsof all regula- tions proposed for an area, especially regarding those impacts to base industries. Agencies should also evaluate and mitigate the impact of regulations on farmand ranch properties as they relate to urban sprawl and air quality. (2001) No. 353 Air Emission Offset Credits We support granting agricultural producers the ability to gen- erate emission reduction offset credits as an incentive for vol- untary implementation of farming emission control practices.
(6) Respect for private property rights; (7) Protection for existing water rights; (8) Reasonable and realistic timeframes; (9) Scientifically validmonitoring programs; and
(10) Compensation for disruption in agricultural operations. All watershed programs should be flexible and recognize the need for adaptive management. All programs should shield from civil and criminal liability agricultural producers participating voluntarily and in good faith in the watershed program. Through the watershed program, if threatened or endangered species become established, agricultural producers should be given “hold harmless” liability protection and “incidental take” protection by the agencies so that agricultural practices for their operations are not impaired. In addition, where these actions by government diminish an owner’s right tousehis property, damage or restrict theusefulness of his property, or constitute a taking of that owner’s property, the
26 Ag Alert January 26, 2022
Powered by FlippingBook