State Water Board hears wide-ranging debate over revised Central Valley dairy order

SACRAMENTO — The State Water Resources Control Board on Wednesday held a public workshop on a revised draft dairy waste discharge order aimed at forcing dairies in the Central Valley to reduce nitrate pollution in groundwater and protect drinking water.

Chair Joaquin Esquivel opened the hybrid meeting at the CalEPA building in Sacramento and said the board released the revised draft on June 15 to solicit public feedback before the board issues a proposed final order. "We're holding this workshop today for the state board members to hear directly from the public on their views of the revised draft order," Esquivel said. Staff emphasized that written comments on the revisions are due July 30 at noon.

Stacy Gillespie of the board’s Office of Chief Counsel gave a roughly 35–40 minute technical overview of the 125‑page document, describing a regulatory framework built around nine components. The plan’s central elements include a nitrogen discharge limit that applies to pond, production‑area and land‑application discharges; a whole‑farm nitrogen accounting approach; interim and final numeric land‑application rates tied to a peer‑reviewed groundwater‑loading limit; and a requirement that dairies provide alternative drinking water where discharges have made a well unsafe. "I will be providing an overview of the 125‑paged revised draft dairy order," Gillespie told the board and audience.

Staff proposed a phased implementation approach: within one year of adoption the regional board would require improved reporting and monitoring; within three to four years regional staff would adopt interim revised waste‑discharge requirements with progressively protective land‑application limits; and within seven to eight years the regional board would adopt final WDRs that incorporate a State Water Board‑developed, peer‑reviewed groundwater‑loading limit. Staff said the revised order is limited in scope to Central Valley dairies rather than establishing a statewide precedent.

Industry panelists and dairy representatives praised some changes but urged major revisions to make the order practicable. Theresa Dunham of Dairy Cares said the group appreciates some clarifications but called the draft "long and weak" in places and warned of implementation burdens. Industry speakers flagged three recurring concerns: the order’s prescriptive schedule for multiple 13267 information orders (which would direct dairies to produce technical reports), a mandatory seepage‑testing regime for earthen ponds that industry says is not widely available, and pond‑lining deadlines that could cost millions per farm. "We do believe there are some opportunities to take the revised draft order and to streamline it and to make it more efficient and workable for the Central Valley dairies," an industry representative said.

Dairy participants also described on‑farm innovations and monitoring efforts. JP Katavila and others described the Central Valley Dairy Representative Monitoring Program (CVDRMP), reporting that about 3,850 wells have been tested and some 2,620 households are receiving free replacement drinking water through management‑zone efforts. Industry representatives said they are building a valley‑wide data management system and aimed to make it available for reporting by roughly March 31 of next year.

Community groups and environmental justice advocates pressed for swifter, enforceable deadlines and broader protections for communities reliant on domestic wells. Kelsey Hinton of the Community Water Center and other advocates recommended mandatory interim drinking‑water measures, expanded well coverage, and the option of in‑lieu payments into the state’s Safe and Affordable Drinking Water (SAFER) fund.

Advocates also presented geospatial analyses linking dairies to higher nitrate levels in nearby domestic wells. Angelica Rodriguez of California Rural Legal Assistance said recent statistics show Latino‑majority neighborhoods face the worst contamination. Research presented by Jake D’Alessandro found that domestic wells within two miles of concentrated animal feeding operations are roughly twice as likely to test above the 10‑milligram‑per‑liter nitrate maximum contaminant level, and that neighborhoods with more than 80% Latino residents had an average nitrate concentration of about 11.27 mg/L (above the MCL), while neighborhoods more than 90% Latino averaged about 14.8 mg/L.

Central Valley Regional Water Board Executive Officer Patrick Palupa told the State Board that regional staff share the board’s goals but warned the draft’s short, prescriptive compliance windows and pond requirements would be resource‑intensive and could be impractical to implement at scale. Palupa said a bench‑top assessment shows roughly 3,400 ponds across the Valley and estimated 300–400 could be in locations where groundwater is shallow enough to raise concern. "With the best intention, this draft order requires the Regional Board to use its limited resources on errands that will divert critical attention from the most pressing water‑quality concerns," he said.

No formal action was taken at the workshop. Staff said it will accept written comments through July 30 and plans to publish a proposed final dairy order that responds to the comments; the board has tentatively scheduled consideration of a final order for Sept. 15, 2026.

Board members asked staff and stakeholders for written proposals to streamline reporting requirements and reduce duplication with CV‑SALTS and management‑zone processes, and they urged clearer descriptions of which tasks must be performed by State Board staff versus the Central Valley Regional Water Board. The board also asked for more documentation of where desktop analyses can narrow the scope of pond‑specific orders so the regional board can focus enforcement where the risk is greatest.

Next steps: stakeholders will file written comments by July 30; staff will review and incorporate feedback before circulating a proposed final order for board consideration.