Panel Chair Daniel Geisler convened the State Water Resources Control Board’s second expert panel on agriculture to continue developing technical recommendations on agricultural nitrogen and groundwater protection, focusing strongly on the first charge question about whether to adopt crop‑specific application limits, discharge limits tied to groundwater protection, or other target approaches.

Panelists agreed the core task is technical: identify where data exist, where gaps remain and what targeted expert input the panel needs to evaluate limits versus objectives. Several panelists said existing data are sufficient in some regions to evaluate regionally tailored limits but not adequate statewide for crop‑by‑crop numeric limits. Thomas Harder, a UC Davis cooperative extension faculty member and hydrologist, emphasized the role of groundwater mixing and travel time in interpreting field‑level measures and said “it makes more sense to consider multi‑year totals and landscape scales rather than a single crop in a single season” when the goal is protecting drinking‑water wells.

Panelists discussed concrete data and modeling needs. Michael Kahn (cooperative extension, irrigation/water resources) and Richard Smith (retired grower/advisor, Monterey County) said the Central Coast and parts of the San Joaquin Valley have substantial field‑level data and crop coefficients; those data can be used to screen for outliers and set interim performance thresholds. Panelists referenced a commonly cited public‑health benchmark—10 milligrams per liter nitrate in drinking water—and a conversion discussed during the meeting that equates that groundwater standard to about 27 pounds of nitrogen per acre‑foot of recharge when averaged over larger recharge volumes; panel speakers noted that conversion only illustrates scale, it is not itself a regulatory limit.

Panelists proposed a pragmatic, staged approach: use readily available regional datasets to set interim, landscape‑or basin‑scale targets or percentile‑based thresholds (for example, moving the 80th percentile of current practice toward a lower target), while simultaneously prioritizing collection of missing crop‑specific removal and application data. Several experts suggested a three‑year average or multi‑year aggregation to account for multi‑crop rotations, mineralization and carryover residues from prior crops, which complicate single‑year, crop‑specific limits.

The panel identified expert speakers and data sources the group wants staff to pursue. Panelists asked staff to invite: Eric Morgan (field and laboratory presentations referenced during the meeting), economists experienced in farm‑level impacts, dairy/livestock production representatives to explain manure nutrient accounting, and practitioners with experience implementing and enforcing agricultural orders. Daniel Geisler asked staff to collect a list of suggested experts and to coordinate format options (presentation vs. structured dialogue) for the next convening.

State Water Resources Control Board staff described logistics and follow‑up. Staff said they would compile the suggested speaker list and materials, circulate draft notes and a working draft of report text so panelists may comment before the next meeting, and explore document‑sharing formats consistent with open‑meetings law. Mary Hamilton (State Water Board enforcement/legal staff) summarized the agency’s progressive enforcement approach used in prior agricultural regulatory work—staff described multi‑year, escalated compliance steps prior to formal penalties—and urged the panel to consider implementability and enforceability when recommending limits.

Public commenters reinforced themes raised by panelists. A public commenter noted a court decision upholding a regional agricultural order and urged the panel to weigh implementability alongside water‑quality goals; another commenter reported that livestock nutrient reports in Region 5 showed large, uncounted pools of nitrogen and asked the panel to examine how on‑farm reporting may systematically underestimate nitrogen leaving operations.

Outcome and next steps: The panel reached consensus on next procedural steps rather than a policy decision. Staff were asked to compile the list of potential speakers and data sources, prepare draft summaries of today’s discussion, and circulate materials before the next meeting. The panel scheduled follow‑up deliberations (staff gave two upcoming dates for extended meetings during the session, including an October 31 all‑day meeting and a mid‑week follow‑up to continue question 1). The panel will continue work to reconcile short‑term, regionally actionable measures with longer‑term data collection needed for crop‑specific numeric limits.

The meeting closed with staff instructions for submitting written suggestions and with the panel scheduling continued discussion at the next session.