Difference between revisions of "Central Coast Region Agricultural Waiver"

From CCoWS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Implementation of Agricultural Order)
(Implementation of Agricultural Order)
Line 87: Line 87:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1
 
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1
| Not mentioned.  However if the discharger resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.
+
| Not mentioned.  However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.
 
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)
 
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 13:19, 12 April 2011

(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')

A watershed-related issue examined by the ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems class at CSUMB.
Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from CCoWS DPR Final Report.

Summary

In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.[1] These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.[2] Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated, a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.[3]

Resources at stake

There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.[4] The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:

  • Drinking Water
  • Irrigation
  • Fresh Water Habitat
  • Marine Habitat
  • Estuarine Habitat
  • Areas of Special Biological Significance

The Regional Water Quality Control Board

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. [5] California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB.


The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.

Regulatory Background

1970's

1980's

  • 1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.[6] Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards [7].Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
  • 1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.[7].

1990's

  • 1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 [8]. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.[6]

2000's

  • 2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers[7].
  • 2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:[9]
  1. Produce a Notice of Intent
  2. Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management
  3. Produce water quality management plan
  4. Implement water quality improvement practices
  5. Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).
  • 2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the preliminary draft order for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.
  • 2010: This preliminary report and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A revised draft of the waiver was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.

Recent Changes

  • 2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the newest draft of the Ag Waiver. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Implementation of Agricultural Order

On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.

The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions:

  • Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed.
  • Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan
  • Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff
  • Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water,
  • Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations
  • Creation and implementation of the following reports:
    • Annual Compliance Document
    • Farm Plan
    • Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan
    • Water Quality Buffer Plan
  • On farm water quality monitoringand reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order


Issues 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006
Backflow prevention Not Mentioned All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices

by October 1, 2012 (30).

Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1 Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff. Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)
High Nitrate Loading Risk Not Mentioned By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.
Abandoned wells Not Mentioned Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes

exploration/test holes.

Erosion Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:
  • sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)
  • cover crops
  • filter strips
  • furrow alignment
Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads.
Maintaining Riparian areas Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.
MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements Found for all dischargers in Order No. One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.
Submission of NOI Submission of NOI guidlines Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)
On Changing Tiers Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances

Stakeholders

A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including:

  • The Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
  • Farmers practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.
  • Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI). Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently.
  • Environmental advocacy groups with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. [10]
  • All organisms making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.

Science

Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included research from several agencies and organizations.

Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:

Surface Water Concerns [11]

Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.

  • Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.
  • The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments.
  • 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.
  • 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.
  • Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.
  • 30% of all sites from Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) and Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.
  • 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life.
  • These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.

Groundwater Concerns[11]

Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region.

  • Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels
  • Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region.
  • Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result.
  • Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues
  • Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies.
  • Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.

Tools

Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. [12]

Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:

Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:

Physical Tests:

  • Temperature
  • Total suspended solids
  • Turbidity

Chemical Tests:

  • Total dissolved oxygen
  • Nutrients
  • Metals
  • pH

Biological Tests:

  • Bacteria concentrations

Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution

Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:

Point source controls:

  • Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands
  • Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields
  • Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement

Non-point source controls:

  • Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff
  • Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations
  • Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides
  • Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official)

Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring

Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations

  • Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) [13]
  • Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) [14]


Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations

  • California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) [15]
  • California Department of Public Health (CDPH) [16]
  • Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) [17]


Mitigation and Remediation Organizations

  • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [18]
  • Central Coast Water Quality Coalition [19]

Future research

Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.

A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal

Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.

References

  1. Agricultural Regulatory Program
  2. CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview
  3. Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?
  4. CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses
  5. [1]
  6. 6.0 6.1 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 [2]
  8. [3]
  9. Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.
  10. CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment
  12. Quality Assurance Project Plan
  13. Central Coast Water Quality Preservation
  14. Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program
  15. California Department of Water Resources
  16. California Department of Public Health
  17. Monterey County Water Resources Agency
  18. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
  19. Central Coast Water Quality Coalition

Links

Disclaimer

This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.