Panel members advising the State Water Resources Control Board on agricultural nitrogen management debated whether to recommend exemptions to the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program and largely favored developing alternative reporting or targeted assessment pathways instead of broad exemptions.

"Exemption is a really strong word," said Chair Daniel Geisler, reflecting the panel's caution about recommending sweeping regulatory carve-outs without robust local data. Panelists pointed to the Rice Coalition's full-assessment approach as a precedent for how a commodity or region could demonstrate low groundwater risk and pursue an alternative compliance program.

Ali Montazar of UC Cooperative Extension, who led the draft response, outlined candidate crops and regions that the panel identified as potentially low risk for nitrate leaching, including wine grapes and alfalfa, and described hydrological differences in desert valleys that affect monitoring and risk. "So there is exemption for rise [rice]," Montazar said while explaining why some existing regional exemptions exist and why others might need tailored study rather than instant extension.

Several panelists favored alternative reporting pathways that would reduce growers' reporting burden while retaining meaningful monitoring. Ruth Dalquist Willard said exemptions "are kind of a lot more, I guess, concerning than alternate reporting," and recommended a high bar for any exemption while encouraging alternate-reporting options tailored to cropping systems.

Panelists repeatedly emphasized that local hydrology and monitoring capacity matter. Montazar said Imperial Valley largely lacks groundwater monitoring and relies on Colorado River surface water, implying that conventional groundwater‑focused exemptions may not be appropriate there. Michael Cohen cautioned that even where groundwater risk is low, discharged nitrogen can still affect surface waters such as the National Marine Sanctuary near coastal tile‑drained areas.

The group concluded it could identify promising candidates for alternative pathways and recommend that the State Water Board and regional boards pursue targeted studies or an alternate-compliance process (similar to the Rice Coalition example) rather than immediate, statewide exemptions. Authors were assigned to revise the draft response for Question 9 for discussion at the next meeting.

The panel set next procedural steps: teams will refine the draft language, and staff will circulate a revised version for the panel to review before the next session.