Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Nitrate Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge enforceable interim nitrate limits as panel prepares draft for public review
Summary
At the panel’s March 11 session, several public commenters urged the expert panel to recommend mandatory interim nitrate discharge limits rather than optional targets, saying voluntary programs have failed to protect drinking water in parts of the state.
During the State Water Resources Control Board expert panel’s public comment period on March 11, multiple community and environmental advocates urged the panel to recommend enforceable interim nitrate discharge limits for regional boards rather than leaving limits optional.
Kaia Rivers, senior policy advocate at the Water Center, told the panel that "the irrigated lands program has been unsuccessful in meeting its objectives and hasn't protected drinking water," and urged the panel to recommend enforceable interim limits with time schedules tied to achieving water quality objectives. Mary Hamilton and other commenters described Region 3 and Region 5 experiences and urged that limits be used to protect communities relying on groundwater.
Karen Gibson, staff attorney for Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, said that because the science shows higher nitrogen application generally increases groundwater contamination, "limits should not be optional." She said interim and final limits are necessary as a mandatory backstop and should be paired with outreach, education and technical assistance so growers can comply.
Why it matters: public commenters emphasized health and equity — domestic well users and small community water systems face health risks from long‑term nitrate exposure. Commenters asked the panel to prioritize public health in its recommended language to the board.
Panel response and next steps: the panel did not adopt a new position in response to public comment at the meeting. Instead, the group finalized edits to the draft language and agreed to release the draft for a 30‑day public comment period; how strongly the draft frames mandatory limits versus voluntary targets will be resolved during that public comment process and in subsequent panel consideration of comments.
What was said (selected quotes):
"If you don't have the courage to recommend limits now, then we won't have clean water across the entire state." —Kaia Rivers
"A significant percentage of growers are already achieving an 80% limit, which indicates agronomic feasibility for many operations." —Karen Gibson (paraphrase of comment citing Region 3 data)
Next procedural note: the panel asked members to submit any dissenting opinions by March 23 for inclusion in Attachment E of the draft; staff aim to post the public draft on or before March 30 for a roughly 30‑day comment window.
