Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harmful Algal Blooms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State boards and regional staff widen monitoring, testing and response for harmful algal blooms
Summary
State and regional water board officials told the Water Quality Coordinating Committee they are scaling up monitoring, remote sensing and public risk communications for cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (HABs), but staff said the effort remains largely reactive and underfunded.
State and regional water board staff described an expanding, but still resource‑limited program to detect, confirm and warn the public about harmful algal blooms (HABs), particularly toxin‑producing cyanobacteria.
The state’s HAB effort is currently built around an event‑response model: suspected blooms are validated, tested for cyanobacterial species and toxin presence, and then posted on public maps and advisories when confirmed. Officials said remote sensing, community (citizen) monitors and focused holiday pre‑season sampling are being used to broaden coverage, but staff repeatedly said monitoring gaps remain and follow‑up sampling is limited by funding.
Why it matters: HABs affect drinking water, recreation, tribal cultural uses, livestock and wildlife and are increasing in frequency and extent as the climate warms. State and regional staff said stronger, coordinated monitoring and clearer benchmarks are needed so communities and local health agencies can respond earlier and more predictably.
State staff framed HABs as a multi‑program problem. Greg Gearhart, deputy director for information management and analysis, told the committee that HABs are not a single‑program issue and that the organisms involved (benthic mats and planktonic blooms) present different detection and exposure challenges. He said the program established after SB 834 is largely reactive: when a bloom is reported, regions validate, if needed pay for lab confirmation and then communicate risk to the public. Gearhart highlighted the need for additional sustained monitoring funding and for improved data sharing and validation of satellite products.
Nick Martirano, assistant deputy director in the Division of Water Quality, said staff have refocused statewide policy work toward harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins themselves rather than only setting nutrient targets. That approach includes developing water quality objectives for cyanotoxins, expanding biological condition indicators and designing implementation plans that account for temperature, flow and other bloom drivers. On the ocean side, a ROMSPEC regional modeling effort by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project is being used to test links between land‑based nutrient discharges, coastal pH and oxygen changes, and biological impacts, and to inform potential Ocean Plan amendments targeting ocean acidification and hypoxia in the Southern California Bight.
Regional offices described new local efforts. Laura Torta Club (Division of Water Rights) and Region 5 staff outlined Delta‑specific challenges — CHABs (cyanobacterial HABs) occur most in backwater and dead‑end channels and concentrate in hotspot locations such as the Stockton waterfront and Frank’s Tract. The draft 2024 Bay‑Delta Plan proposes new CHAB monitoring locations and special studies and will initially assign monitoring responsibilities to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project, expanding later to additional rights holders and tributaries. The Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta CHAB monitoring strategy and a USGS monitoring design report were described as the technical next steps to coordinate monitoring and support predictive modeling.
Region staff described practical tactics under study and in pilot: hydrogen peroxide mesocosm tests for planktonic blooms, remote sensing pilots to increase spatial coverage, volunteers trained to spot blooms and report, and targeted dredging pilots. Drinking water program staff said HABs are an ‘‘emerging and unregulated contaminant’’ and are developing notification and response levels (based on OEHHA guidance) and methods for saxitoxin analysis; they requested dedicated staff to support source water assessments and treatment vulnerability reviews.
Where the program stands: staff said HABs response work has improved but is mainly event‑driven, with limited capacity for proactive, continuous monitoring, follow‑up sampling after events, or long‑term trend analysis. The HAB network — including the statewide HAB network, USGS, DWR, local nonprofits and academic partners — was identified as central to expanding coverage, validating remote sensing signals, and moving toward predictive forecasting.
What’s next: participants urged a stepped plan to fund a coordinated monitoring program (Delta and freshwater→estuary→marine continuum), to test and validate remote sensing tools, and to adopt cyanotoxin water quality objectives as a practical regulatory first step that can trigger consistency across communications and public health responses.
Ending: Committee members and regional executive officers said HABs are a cross‑jurisdictional, climate‑driven problem that requires more sustained funding and clearer decision thresholds for public health action. State and regional staff said they will continue to pursue monitoring network expansion and policy steps to anchor communication and response.
