Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Debate Targets Vs Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Expert panel debates targets vs. enforceable limits, outlier definitions and data transparency
Summary
Panelists debated whether to recommend enforceable nitrate limits or iterative, ratcheting targets; key issues included percentile thresholds for outliers, whether metrics should be crop‑ or area‑based, three‑year averaging, access to acreage data, and incentives for growers to reduce loading.
After the Central Valley presentations the panel moved into deliberations on charge questions about numeric limits, targets and metrics. Panelists agreed on the need for measurable progress but split on framing: many favored an iterative target approach with milestones that ratchet toward more protective goals, while public commenters and some panelists urged interim enforceable limits to ensure accountability.
"We could set limits at the upper eightieth to ninetieth percentile," said Richard Smith, noting that exact percentile choices were still under discussion. Several panelists argued percentiles should be calculated on a per‑crop or per‑cropping‑system basis rather than across mixed cropland to avoid skewing results where one crop dominates local acreage.
Panelists also flagged how current Central Valley outlier methods exclude fields that do not have the same crop or manager for three consecutive years. Daniel Geisler and others said that exclusion risks leaving rotating or leased fields out of outreach and compliance pathways. Thomas Harter urged inclusion of all fields when comparing against targets so that growers with crop rotations or short‑term leases still face follow‑up when their fields contribute high loads.
On the question of metrics, many panelists supported using applied minus removed (A‑minus‑R) as a practical, grower‑reportable indicator while acknowledging that process‑based models like CV‑SWAT can better translate loads to groundwater outcomes where hydrology matters. Several members suggested a combined approach: use A‑minus‑R or application‑rate rules where removal coefficients or yields are unavailable, but integrate modeling and regional factors for township‑level targets.
Panelists discussed incentives to encourage early adoption of best management practices. Hannah Waterhouse highlighted a fee‑reduction idea proposed by Chair Geisler — lower fees for growers meeting metrics — and other members suggested credits or outreach tied to demonstrable reductions.
Public comments during the meeting strongly urged greater data transparency and broader access to acreage data. Elias Rodriguez of California Rural Legal Assistance told the panel: "I urge the state water board to exercise its authority to collect that acreage data from the coalitions and give it to the panelists." Several community advocates recommended interim limits at or below the 75th percentile to accelerate protections for drinking water supplies.
No formal recommendation or vote was taken at this session. Panelists asked staff to circulate slide decks, meeting summaries and to explore options to accelerate draft iterations and document sharing within public‑meeting constraints.
