WINTER/SUMMER 2009 RECAP
Long Term Irrigated Lands Program In Development
roundwater and farm nutrients received AB1938 or AB3030 plans as the basis; the most attention in public meetings held Relying on a third-party entity (watershed this past winter and spring between the coalition, commodity group, etc.) to develop RegionalG Water Board, agriculture coalitions and groundwater quality management plans for public interest groups. With the existing Irrigated areas where problems have been identified. Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) set to expire in Farmers in those areas would need to adopt 2011, the Regional Board is asking for input from practices should crop inputs be the source stakeholders on how the next program should (fertilizer or pesticides). look. Multiple meetings have been held since Feb- ruary 2009 as well as the Regional Water Board In such an approach, third parties would start • Regional News requesting that all interested stakeholders submit out by evaluating available groundwater data their approaches to regulating ground and sur- then identifying areas and constituents of con- face waters. cern, then prioritize areas to address first. Also identified would be agricultural practices that • In the News If early comments and meeting discussions are may be causing or contributing to problems and any indication, the future surface water program management practices that growers could use will likely look similar to the existing ILRP. How to address the constituents of concern. To be in • Coalition Contacts groundwater will be regulated is far less certain. compliance, growers would complete acknowl- The Regional Water Board in July released a draft edgement forms, agreeing to implement identified of five alternative approaches to regulate ground- management practices to the maximum extent water. One of those approaches, or a combina- practicable. tion of several, will ultimately be adopted by the Board in 2011. In the approach supported by public interest groups such as Clean Water Action, California In an October 2008 stakeholder meeting, the Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Commu- Regional Water Board laid out an aggressive time- nity Water Center, agriculture would be required table for developing a draft long term program, to develop watershed or regional plans that asking for a near complete outline by October include identification of high risk areas, reporting 2009. The draft Environmental Impact Report of nutrient and pesticide application on a farm by is due Spring 2010 with a final certification by farm basis, adoption of BMPs and monitoring of Regional Water Board expected by Winter 2010. shallow groundwater. In comments sent to the Regional Water Board Whichever program is ultimately adopted, in mid-2009, watershed coalitions and other agri- ample opportunity still exists for public input. cultural interests suggested using a multifaceted The “alternative approaches” for the new program approach to regulate groundwater the Central are to be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Valley. The basic principles include: Report (EIR) not expected to be finalized until Fall Reliance on local agencies (irrigation districts, 2010. The alternatives to be examined by the EIR, county agencies, etc.) to be responsible for which the Water Board is anticipated to combine determining the need for groundwater qual- into a single approach, were finalized in August ity protection requirements, using Integrated 2009. The final program goes to the Water Board Regional Groundwater Management Plans, for a vote in Summer 2011.
Published by Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship DPR Moving On Irrigation Runoff Regs www.curesworks.org raft regulations targeting pesticides in bicides frequently detected by watershed coali- with support from irrigation runoff began the lengthy public tion sampling. Growers will need to follow Best Almond Board of California review process in April. In an unusual Management Practices should specific pesticides step,D the California Department of Pesticide be applied before irrigating fields that drain into www.almondboard.com Regulation (DPR) sent the draft rules first to the waterways. Editor: Water Board for comment. County agricultural As with the dormant spray regulations, commissioners also were also given the chance Parry Klassen [email protected] growers will have a menu of management to review the draft regulations. By mid-summer, practice options to choose from. Such practices agricultural organizations had not seen a copy of would target the pathway for all types of farm the new rules. inputs entering waterways. DPR expects a lengthy DPR said in 2008 that the rules would be pat- public review process and adoption no sooner terned after the dormant spray regulations for than 2010. orchards and will focus on insecticides and her- Regional Coalition News North Valley
Regional Board Files ACL Complaint for Non- compliance Sac Valley Management Plan Moves Forward ecent action by the Regional Water management plan for the as the lowest priority. A management Board is a reminder of the impor- Sacramento Valley Water Quality plan is implemented using sequential tance of responding to requests for informationR about participation in the Coalition’s (SVWQC) was steps including: source identification to approvedA by the Regional Board in early determine if agriculture is the contributing Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. In 2009. The management plan describes cause; mitigation actions, including June, an Administrative Civil Liability the approach to be taken throughout implementation of management practices; Complaint was issued to a Sacramento the coalition region for monitoring and determining the effectiveness of grower County grower for failure to respond to implementation of management practices. outreach; and reporting annually the results a California Water Code section 13267 The plan describes site-specific activities of the coalition’s efforts. Order. While the Regional Board could and implementation schedules for each collect $1000 a day for the 277 days since Seven of the ten subwatersheds in the the Board issued the initial request for a water body and parameter in the coalition Sacramento Valley have management plan region. Management plans are required of response from the landowner, the com- obligations in 2009 with the remaining plaint proposes that the landowner pay a all Central Valley coalitions when water three beginning in 2010. Implementation or sediment monitoring finds two or more $3,000 administrative civil liability (ACL) of management plans is a collaborative fine. exceedances of state water standards or effort between SVWQC and subwatershed toxicity to test organisms. coordinators, county agricultural Using a ranking from high to low, the commissioners and land owner/operators. management plan describes actions for Current efforts are focused on reviewing Lands Owned by State addressing problems with the highest pesticide application records and evaluating Enrolled in Coalitions priority given to registered pesticides and coalition monitoring data. Work begins toxicity to test organisms. Medium priority in the Fall 2009 on source evaluation he California Department of Water includes legacy pesticides and trace metals and completing surveys of management Resources (DWR) enrolled in the followed by pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), practices. Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program pathogen indicators (bacteria) and salinity Tthousands of irrigated acres owned by the agency in the Delta and surrounding regions. In May 2009, Pamela Creedon, Tours Showcase Farm Management Practices Executive Officer for the Regional Water eeing is believing” and that is management practice surveys performed on Board, notified DWR of approval of their what the Sacramento Valley Walker Creek under a Water Board funded application to join a coalition group, Water Quality Coalition grant. In El Dorado county, Water Board enrolling lands in Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, “S(SVWQC) is helped make happen in staff saw first hand the Integrated Pest Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano summer 2009 as it shuttled Water Board Management and erosion control techniques Counties. staff on valley-wide tours of farms, water used by Madrone Vineyards. They also supply infrastructure and coalition water heard about irrigation management services sampling sites. Key to the tours, which provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District Houdesheldt New Lead covered the 10 subwatersheds in the which allow growers to correlate irrigations for Sacramento Valley region, was showcasing the stewardship with weather conditions, moisture content Water Quality Coalition and management practices being used by of soil and the crop’s irrigation requirements growers across the Sacramento Valley. In through the use of neutron probes. SVWQC ruce Houdesheldt is the new Pit River, Water Board staff saw efforts plans to continue offering tours, prompted coalition manager for Sacramento to eliminate bank erosion and keep by a request from Water Board senior Valley Water Quality Coalition, cattle out of creeks. In the Glenn Colusa replacingB Tina Lunt. Houdesheldt assumes management to “show us your success subwatershed, Butte and Glenn county stories.” coalition responsibilities as director of agricultural commissioners showcased the regulatory affairs for Northern California Water Association, whose staff handles organizational affairs for the coalition. Lands Owned by State Enrolled in Coalitions Houdesheldt comes to NCWA from Lennar Communities where he secured regulatory he California Department of Water Resources (DWR) enrolled in the Irrigated Lands approvals and planning entitlements for Regulatory Program thousands of irrigated acres owned by the agency in the Delta the land development firm. Formerly, he and surrounding regions. In May 2009, Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer for the was legislative advocate and director of TRegional Water Board, notified DWR of approval of their application to join a coalition government affairs for the North State group, enrolling lands in Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Solano Building Industry Association (NSBIA), Counties. and was also a Legislative Advocate for the California Building Industry Association (CBIA). Regional Coalition News Westside San Joaquin Monitoring for Fall/ South Valley Winter 2009 Finds Few Problems ater monitoring in the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley in Fall Spring 2009 Finds Exceedances in 2008 found few exceedances Westside Waterways ofW water quality standards and only one currently used pesticide above state stan- ow flows in Westside San Joaquin waters. The most common exceedance was dards. In sampling for September 2008 Valley creeks and drains continued for chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Lock On, Govern, performed by the Westside San Joaquin this past winter and early spring, NuPhos), which exceeded state standards River Watershed Coalition, chlorpyrifos largelyL due to below normal rainfall and in Hospital Creek, Ingram Creek and Salt (Lorsban, Lock-On, Govern, NuPhos) was lack of irrigation water deliveries to farmers. Slough. Diuron herbicide was also found in found above state standards in Mud and Low creek flows don’t always mean fewer May in Ramona Lake above state standards. Salt Slough and the San Joaquin River at problems with pesticide runoff but in early In June, the long banned insecticide chlor- Sack Dam (the latter just slightly above Spring, it seemed to be the rule. In February dane was detected in Marshall Road Drain the standard). Another chlorpyrifos sampling of a storm event, Blewett Drain, and Orestimba Creek. Chlordane was once exceedance was logged in November in Ingram Creek, Hospital Creek and Poso widely used for spider and termite control the Delta Mendota Canal at at a site near Slough, showed exceedances of chlorpyrifos. but commercial sales were discontinued the Del Puerto Water District office. In March and April 2009, only the herbicide in 1988. Chlordane was also found in Salt DDE, the breakdown product for the diuron (Karmex) was detected both months Slough in May. The only other pesticide legacy pesticide DDT was found only in Salt Slough at Sand Dam above state detection in June was for methamidophos once, in November 2008. That exceedance limits set for the product with Ingram Creek (Monitor), found at Del Puerto Creek. occurred in Mud Slough. DDT was showing another chlorpyrifos exceedance. found in January 2009, the lone pesticide All other sites showed no other currently DDE, the breakdown product of DDT exceedance for that month. Other than registered pesticide exceedances in all three insecticide, continued to be detected these four exceedances, no other cur- months. throughout the Spring months in numerous rently used pesticides were found above Westside waterways, still at very low levels. standards in the sites sampled on the In May, pest pressure increased and pes- Westside from September 2008 through ticides were again showing up in regional January 2009. Sampling did find frequent exceedances of EC, a measurement of salt levels in the water. High EC levels are common on the Westside, a result of East San Joaquin Seeing Fewer Pesticide Problems higher salinity soils and elevated levels requent exceedances of pesticide In other activities, the ESJWQC is focusing in surface water supplies. standards have hindered the water considerable efforts on its management plan monitoring program of the East San implementation, which targets outreach Chemistry Tests Reveal JoaquinF Water Quality Coalition (ESJWQC) activities to three priority watersheds: Dry Sediment Toxicity Sources since its inception in 2005. That fortune may Creek in eastern Stanislaus County; Prairie be changing as the coalition logged its first Flower Drain west of Modesto; and Mari- or the first time, Central Valley water- winter (October – March) with no pesticide posa Creek/Duck Slough in Merced County. shed coalitions were required this past exceedances in all but two of its sampling With 22 waterways in the ESJWQC region spring to perform chemistry analysis Fon sediment samples that showed toxicity sites. A chlorpyrifos exceedance was found under management plans, Regional Water to the test organism hyalella azteca. Sediment in November in the Merced River at the Board allowed the coalition to begin efforts samples are typically taken in spring, rep- Santa Fe bridge where the insecticide was to mitigate problems believed to originate resenting winter runoff, and late summer, found above state standards. from farm runoff in the three priority water- to represent the just completed irrigation The string of no pesticide exceedances ways. These efforts include holding work- season. Chemistry analysis are triggered continued in the spring and early summer shops within the watersheds with follow up when 80% or less of hyalella azteca survive months through June, with the only other visits to landowners with parcels located after exposure to creek bed sediments in the exception being chlorpyrifos and diuron directly on the waterways. Since February, laboratory. ESJWQC board members Parry Klassen and exceedances at Mootz Drain in December, The Westside San Joaquin River Water- February and June (chlorpyrifos only). This Wayne Zipser have contacted 59 landown- shed Coalition began performing chemistry sample site in eastern Stanislaus County ers in the three watersheds and completed analysis in 2008 ahead of other groups. Its is located on a drain that serves a limited management practice surveys during on March sediment sample exceeded the 80% number of fields and has stagnant water farm discussions. Response by coalition trigger at three monitoring sites: Blewett conditions much of the year. The coalition members has been extremely favorable with Drain, Hospital Creek and Ingram Creek. is currently petitioning the Regional Water a unanimous commitment to solving water Different pesticide combinations apparently Board to drop the site and move to another quality problems originating from farming contributed to the toxicity. At Blewett Drain, location. activities. pesticides detected were bifenthrin (Cap- ture), Lambda-Cyhalothrin (Warrior) and DDE, breakdown of DDT. At Hospital Creek, bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Lock On, Govern, NoPhos) and DDE combined to create the toxicity. At Ingram Creek, analy- sis found Lambda-Cyhalothrin and DDE. Pyrethroid insecticides, including Capture and Warrior, are known to be transported off treated fields via sediment suspended in irrigation or storm water runoff, as is the case for chlorpyrifos. In the News Ask the Water Board
Nicole Bell Appointed to Regional Board Watershed Coalition News asks readers to pose rrigated agriculture has a new repre- 2005. She also served as secretary for Lower questions to the Water Board. The question sentative on the Central Valley Regional Consumnes Resource Conservation District this issue is answered by Joe Karkoski, Acting Water Quality Control Board. Nicole Bell, and was the executive director for the U.S. Assistant Executive Officer, Central Valley Iformerly a subwatershed coordinator for Department of Agriculture-Sacramento/ Regional Water Quality Control Board. the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coali- Amador County Farm Service Agency and The information requests from my tion/Sacramento-Amador Water Quality the Imperial County Farm Service Agency watershed coalition are going beyond Alliance, was appointed by the governor in from 1993 to 1994. Bell is also vice president what I’m comfortable providing. What are my other coverage options? May. Bell’s experience in agriculture includes of the Sacramento Farm Bureau Agriculture industry relations and alumni manager Education Foundation and serves on the You are likely farming in a watershed for the California Agricultural Leadership Sacramento County Farm Bureau, California where coalition water or sediment sampling Foundation since 2008 and a consultant for Farm Bureau Federation and Young Farmers has found two or more exceedances of State Valley Agricultural Consulting Service since and Ranchers State Committee. water quality standards. When that happens, watershed coalitions are required to prepare Management Plans for that waterway. These plans often include the commitment by the Water Board Targets Enforcement Activities coalition to send out management practice he Regional Water Board is taking a new approach for contacting non-participants surveys to landowners with questions about in the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program: mailing postcards to landowners in your farming practices. Coalitions use the targeted regions. The effort began in September 2008 in the San Joaquin-Sacra- information to help determine the potential mentoT Delta where 95 postcards were sent to landowners identified as non-participants. sources of those exceedances or to learn more Water Board staff is calling the postcard mailings a more cost effective approach than about practices that best protect water quality. 13267 Orders, an official request for information that can lead to a fine if not responded The coalitions will then encourage growers to. Failure to respond to a postcard triggers issuance of a 13267 Order. to implement management practices that Earlier this summer, the Regional Water Board sent out 13267 Orders by registered work for their farm and protect water quality. mail to 16 landowners in Butte, Sacramento, Solano Counties who were not participating Should growers fail to provide the necessary in the ILRP. Another 12 Orders were sent to landowners in Stanislaus County. That was management practice information to the coali- on top of four Notice of Violations (NOV) issued in March. tion, the Regional Water Board will consider In June, 10 Notices of Violations were issued to landowners who failed to respond to those growers to be in violation of the Coali- Orders mailed in Spring 2008. Another 10 NOVs were issued in August. The largest fine tion Conditional Waiver. We anticipate taking to date for an NOV was $3000, paid by a grower from Merced County. the following steps with those non-compliant growers: • Issue an order under section 13267(b) of the California Water Code (13267 Order) requir- State Fiscal Problems Sink BMP Grant ing the grower to submit the management nother casualty of the state’s fiscal crisis: nearly $8 million in grants set to go to plan information to the Central Valley Water Central Valley farmers to help improve water quality in local streams and rivers Board; and appears will likely not be spent. The funding, approved through Proposition 84, • Working with the coalition to rescind the a waterA bond passed in 2006, was to go toward cost sharing on projects such as sediment non compliant grower’s regulatory coverage ponds and irrigation recirculation systems. A freeze was ordered by the Governor in under the Coalition Conditional Waiver. December 2008 on all grant spending just as the contract for the project was being finalized Once coverage under the Coalition Condi- with CURES, the project manager. Some expect the project to be reinstated, although the tional Waiver is rescinded, the grower would state’s continuing budget woes make such a prospect unlikely. be required to obtain regulatory coverage in one of the following ways: • Submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under New State Fee for Joining Coalition Late the Individual Discharger Conditional Waiver for discharges from irrigated lands. Annual hile requirements have been eased lands. Existing coalitions members are fees are based on acreage: for example, $1000 for joining a coalition, a new fee has allowed to add newly purchased property for a 50-acre farm or $2625 for a 250-acre been approved for those seeking to memberships. Previously, potential farm. In addition, landowners would need to coverageW by a watershed coalition after dischargers who applied after the December develop a site-specific monitoring and report- September 1, 2008. A $50- $200 fee can be 31, 2006 deadline were required to file for an ing program, which can cost $10,000 to $15,000 assessed for each application to cover the Individual Discharger Conditional Waiver annually; or cost for Regional Water Board staff time to or for Waste Discharge Requirements except • Submit a Report of Waste Discharge for process paperwork. No fees will be applied under circumstances such as purchasing coverage under Individual Waste Discharge to those starting new farming operations land or adding irrigation to cropland. Requirements (WDRs). Cost for coverage or creating new entities to farm irrigated under this option is based on potential threat to water quality and complexity of waste dis- charges from irrigated lands. A typical annual fee for WDRs is $6006. Site specific monitoring State Acreage Fees Unchanged For 2009-10 is also required. creage fees paid by watershed coalitions for every member acre will remain Should a grower not obtain coverage under unchanged during the state’s fiscal year 2009-10. The 12 cent per acre charge one of these options, the Regional Water is paid annually by all Central Valley coalitions to the State Water Resources Board may pursue enforcement actions that ControlA Board and is used to cover the cost of staffing the Irrigated Lands Regula- could include fines of thousands of dollars tory Program. Most coalitions include the state fees in their membership charges, depending on the nature and extent of the which range from $1 to $2 per acre and cover expenses such as monitoring, report- grower’s non-compliance. ing and outreach required under the ILRP. Send your questions for “Ask the Water Board” to [email protected]. Sacramento Valley Watershed Coalitions Contact Information
Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Napa County Putah Creek Subwatershed Group Shasta-Tehama Water Education Coalition Bruce Houdesheldt Sandy Elles Vicky Dawley Northern California Water Association 707-224-5403 x13 530 -527-3013 916-442-8333 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Northeastern California Water Association (Pit River) Robert Harris Butte-Yuba-Sutter Water Quality Coalition Robert Holscher 530-472-1436 Ryan Bonea 530- 335-7016 [email protected] 530- 673-6550 [email protected] Solano Yolo Subwatershed [email protected] Placer/Nevada/South Sutter/North Sacramento John Currey (Solano) Colusa Glenn Subwatershed Subwatershed 707-678-1655 [email protected] Kandi Manhart, 530-934-4601 Linda Watanabe [email protected] 916-645-1774 Denise Sagara (Yolo) 530-662-6316 El Dorado County Agricultural Water Quality [email protected] [email protected] Management Corporation Sacramento-Amador Water Quality Alliance Valerie Zentner Dan Port Upper Feather River Watershed Group 530-622-7710 209-274-4351 Carol Dobbas [email protected] [email protected] 530-994-3057 [email protected] Lake County Subwatershed Chuck March 707-263-0911
Dinuba, CA 93618-3203 CA Dinuba,
531-D North Alta Ave. Alta North 531-D Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship Environmental Urban/Rural for Coalition Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Contact Information
Sacramento Valley San Joaquin Valley & Delta Wayne Zipser Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition San Joaquin County & Stanislaus County Farm Bureau (also Sacramento Valley subwatershed contacts) Delta Water Quality Coalition 209-522-7278 [email protected] Bruce Houdesheldt Michael Wackman www.esjcoalition.org [email protected] 209-472-7127, ext. 125 [email protected] Northern California Water Association Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition 916-442-8333 David Cone www.norcalwater.org Westside San Joaquin River Watershed Coalition Kings River Conservation District Joseph C. McGahan 559-237-5567 California Rice Commission 559-582-9237 [email protected] www.krcd.org Tim Johnson [email protected] 916-929-2264 www.calrice.org East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition Westlands Water District Sue Ramos Parry Klassen 552-241-6215 Coalition for Urban/Rural [email protected] Environmental Stewardship www.westlandswater.org 559-646-2224
Dinuba, CA 93618-3203 CA Dinuba,
531-D North Alta Ave. Alta North 531-D Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship Environmental Urban/Rural for Coalition