Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Targets Vs Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Expert panel splits on targets vs enforceable limits; approves schedule change to allow public review of draft report
Summary
Panelists debated whether the State Water Board should pursue enforceable nitrogen limits or stepwise targets tied to A‑minus‑R metrics; staff emphasized progressive enforcement and feasibility considerations. The panel voted to use Jan. 14 as a public workshop on a draft report and rescheduled a final meeting to late February/early March.
The State Water Resources Control Board agricultural expert panel spent the afternoon session weighing two central questions: whether the board should pursue enforceable numeric limits that could trigger progressive enforcement, or whether interim, non‑enforceable targets (with time schedules) are more appropriate given data, regional variation and implementation feasibility.
Karen Mogas, chief deputy director at the State Water Board, summarized the board’s view that enforceable standards require a clear, measurable metric, a scientific rationale linking the metric to protection of beneficial uses and feasible measurement and reporting. Mogas also explained enforcement is progressive: "We don't go out the gate with a fine. We start with a notice, pretty informal," giving regulated parties time to correct deficiencies before escalation.
Panelists repeatedly returned to three themes: regional heterogeneity, data sufficiency and the role of modelling. Several members said that in basins with well‑documented nitrate contamination (Central Coast, parts of the Central Valley) there is sufficient data and modelling capacity (e.g., CV‑SWAT coupled with groundwater models) to set landscape‑scale targets tied to drinking‑water protection goals. Others argued a stepwise approach — interim targets with progressively stricter milestones leading to a long‑term numeric limit tied to the 10 mg/L nitrate MCL — would balance ambition with feasibility. Agricultural stakeholders urged that crediting in‑season organic nitrogen availability and conservation practices (cover crops, compost) be included so rules do not disincentivize practices that reduce long‑term leaching.
Formal action: The panel voted to modify its schedule so the draft panel report will be released in advance of a Jan. 14 public workshop; the final panel meeting to consider comments was rescheduled to late February/early March. Chair Daniel Geisler called for a motion; Dr. Thomas Harter moved, Richard Smith seconded, and a roll‑call majority approved the change. Staff said the Jan. 14 workshop will be part of a public comment period that will extend beyond the meeting date.
Why it matters: The panel’s recommendation about metrics and whether to advise enforceable limits will shape how regional boards translate farm reports into permit requirements. The panel directed staff to gather additional materials — model documentation, INMP summary tables, and evidence supporting compost and organic fertilizer discount factors — to inform drafting.
Ending: Panelists were assigned follow‑up items and staff committed to scheduling the prioritized technical briefings. The panel expects to circulate draft responses to Questions 1 and 2 before the next working group meeting; members were asked to send edits to staff.
