Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nitrate Regulation Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Water Board panel reviews irrigated-lands program, summarizes expert recommendations and reporting framework
Summary
A State Water Resources Control Board expert panel meeting reviewed earlier expert-panel findings and the board's 2023 order, emphasizing coalitions, per-field reporting, three-year baselines and combined irrigation-nitrogen management; staff asked the panel to use scientific recommendations to refine the program.
The State Water Resources Control Board convened an expert-panel session on irrigated lands and nitrate management that reviewed prior expert recommendations, summarized the board's 2023 San Joaquin petition order and described how reporting and coalition-based implementation are intended to work.
Panelists and board staff framed the problem as longstanding and complex. "Nitrate exists in California groundwater, no doubt," said Thomas Harter, a University of California, Davis hydrology specialist who reviewed the 2014 expert-panel findings and the scientific basis for nutrient balancing. The presentations emphasized that nitrate moves with water and that management must link nitrogen accounting and irrigation practice.
Why it matters: Board staff told the panel they expect scientific recommendations to guide improvements to a statewide program that has been implemented regionally with different start dates and data depth. Central Valley regions already have multi-year reporting data; other regions are earlier in implementation. The board signaled it expects the panel to assess metrics, data gaps and how data should feed regulatory choices.
Key points from staff and the 2014 panel recap: - Focus on farm-level nitrogen accounting: the expert work recommends tracking nitrogen inputs and crop removal (the A minus R framework) and reporting by field or by groups of fields with identical crop, fertilizer and irrigation practices; that approach was carried into the 2023 order. - Multi-year baselines: the 2014 panel and staff recommended averaging over multiple years (presentations cited a three-year minimum) to reduce distortion from single-year crop failures or unusual market events. - Coalitions and anonymized reporting: coalitions will compile producer data, calculate A minus R on behalf of growers, and deliver aggregated reports to regional boards; staff described protections and anonymization to encourage participation. - Irrigation water as a nitrogen source: staff explained that irrigation water and organic amendments contain nitrogen and should be counted when calculating growers' nitrogen balance.
Board counsel Eric Gilman summarized the 2023 order's intent: to restore and reinforce reporting requirements and to convene a second expert panel to evaluate whether numeric targets or other performance metrics are appropriate, and, if so, how to set them responsibly.
Board staff engineer Loly (last name not specified) said the panel's recommendations will be used to refine questions the board has published for the panel's review and to help design the next regulatory steps. She noted the program has received public comments and that staff will use panel input to revise the regulatory approach and data needs.
The session closed with the board asking the technical panel to concentrate on scientific and technical recommendations (metrics, model assumptions, data gaps and monitoring design) rather than on economic policy choices, which the board said it will consider separately.
The board scheduled follow-up technical sessions and public listening sessions to examine underlying datasets and to let the public comment on proposed recommendations.
