Order Continued from Page 1 regional boards to update their irrigated lands programs. Mendocino County winegrape grower Frost Pauli said, “The biggest single issue is the individual grower monitoring and reporting requirements.” “Under the draft, every grower must do individual monitoring of surface turbidity and of groundwater for nitrates and chem- icals,” he said. “If you have four or five do- mestic wells on a vineyard, you have to test every single one of them for nitrates, and you have to test for 20 chemicals.” Pauli’s vineyards in Napa County fall under the irrigated lands program adopt- ed by the regional water quality control board overseeing region 2 and the Napa River watershed. For vineyards in region 2, he said there are no individual grower monitoring requirements. “(In region 2), it’s all representative monitoring done in a few locations to make sure that there’s not a problem, and if there is a problem, the result is to go upstream to find where the point source of that issue is,” Pauli said. “We’re saying, ‘Why can’t we be like region 2? It’s the same crop.’” Other aspects of the North Coast re- gion’s draft regulation that growers said are unreasonable include an annual “winteri- zation” period Nov. 15 to April 1, when any ground-disturbing activity is prohibited. In addition, during this time growers are
Winegrapes grow in Anderson Valley in Mendocino County. Vineyard growers in Mendocino and Sonoma counties say proposed water- quality regulations are costly and duplicate efforts by growers who participate in sustainability certification programs.
not allowed to drive into vineyards unless traveling on “all-weather” roads. Pauli called that “nonsense,” saying it means growers may not access vineyards to do routine cultural practices for almost half the year, including during a critical time when vines go dormant. “This is going to be a huge problem,” he said. The regulation includes a setback re- quirement alongside creeks.
Growers must have a natural barrier, and depending on the type of stream and where it is, the barrier determines what the setback is, Pauli said. “The setback can be anywhere from 25 feet to 50 feet, depending on the condi- tion of the stream, size and when it flows,” he added. Pauli knows a small winegrape grower in Mendocino County who has an 11-acre vineyard that borders a creek. Because of the setback requirement, Pauli said, the grower estimates he would have to remove three or four vines at the end of every row to comply, losing one of his 11 acres. Noelle Cremers, director of environ- mental and regulatory affairs for The Wine Institute, which represents California win- eries, said many North Coast winegrape growers realize there is a need to adopt an order but suggested regulations be based on risk. Cremers said growers who are low risk should have a simple process for com- pliance, while those who are higher risk should have higher standards. “Then you’re putting costs on people that will have a real impact on the environ- ment and not on those who are just doing all this reporting and it’s not really going to have any benefit,” she added. People are having a difficult time understanding why all the nitrogen re- quirements apply to them, Cremers said, because nitrogen application rates are lower for winegrapes than other crops. She said the risk of contamination “is pretty much nil.” The Russian River watershed, where just 10% of land is farmed in grapes, has been designated by the state as an impaired wa- ter related to sediment. Cremers noted that the regional board has not yet developed a Total Maximum Daily Load program plan, which involves studies that identify sourc- es of sediment discharge in the watershed. “Because the Russian River doesn’t have a TMDL, it feels like the regional board is asking vineyards to take on the role of monitoring for sediment for the entire wa- tershed,” Cremers said. “Why are we being asked to undertake all of that monitoring?
That should have been done through a TMDL process.” Sonoma County Farm Bureau Deputy Executive Director Robin Bartholow said, “Many growers are already enrolled in sus- tainable farming programs and are engag- ing in best management practices that are required to be certified, so it does get a little bit frustrating when they’re asked to do ad- ditional reporting.” Many winegrape growers in Mendocino and Sonoma counties are sustainably cer- tified through the Fish Friendly Farming Certification program, recognized as a method of compliance for the irrigated lands regulatory program. Through the Fish Friendly Farming pro- gram, Laurel Marcus, author of the pro- gram and science director at the California Land Stewardship Institute, said scientif- ic staff work with farmers to evaluate all sources and potential sources of sediment and to inventory chemical use. She said the program “provides the grower a blueprint for what they need to do to maintain water quality and not contrib- ute pollutants to waterways.” In Sonoma County, 54,600 total acres are enrolled in the program, and 40,000 total acres are en- rolled in Mendocino County. Winegrape growers affected by the draft order are hopeful they can work with the regional board to meet the regulatory mandate and improve the order to make it more reasonable, Bartholow said. In addition to the vineyard require- ments, in January 2021, the state adopted new wastewater discharge regulations af- fecting wineries that apply winery process water to land for irrigation and soil amend- ment uses. “We’re getting hit by all sides,” Pauli said of the regulations. The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board scheduled a pub- lic workshop about the order this Friday. Public comments on the draft are due Aug. 14. The board could adopt the order in December. (Christine Souza is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.)
10 Ag Alert August 2, 2023
Powered by FlippingBook