Water board may modify waiver program

Modifications to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's program for farms that discharge water from their operations to surface streams will be considered April 24-25 in Rancho Cordova. On the agenda is a proposal to change the way a grower can join a watershed coalition by redefining the conditions for participation in a coalition and asking the state Water Resources Control Board to add fees for those who join late.

When the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program was renewed in 2006, the deadline to join a coalition was set for Dec. 31, 2006. The deadline resulted in a 30 percent increase in grower participation in watershed coalitions.

"Although many have called this an agricultural waiver program, in fact, it's far from a waiver," said Danny Merkley, California Farm Bureau Federation director of water resources. "Because of the conditions for compliance it is instead a tightly controlled regulatory program with exacting conditions. Our farmers have come forward to support the program and California's clean water efforts while continuing their commitment to being good stewards of the land and remaining profitable."

The coalitions provide water monitoring services to farmers and the board that helps characterize water quality. Today there are about 28,000 Central Valley farmers representing about 5.2 million acres participating in the program. It's estimated, however, that there are still about 12,000 farmers who may or may not need to participate.

"That's a concern for us because we don't know whether they should be in the program or not," said Joe Karkoski, chief of the board's Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. "If they have irrigated lands and there's a storm or if irrigation water runs off a field, then they need to be in our program."

Based on current estimates, annual costs for the state to oversee a discharger enrolled under the individual waiver ranges from about $2,000 to $8,000 a year. Fees charged by the coalitions are typically set on a per-acre basis for monitoring and can range from $1 to $5 per acre a year.

The board's notice of proposed modifications to the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program notes that "Recalcitrant dischargers and those not working cooperatively with the coalitions would be regulated under the waiver for individuals. Requiring a fee with applications will help maintain (and enhance) the increased accountability created with the deadline."

Already 1,400 notices have been sent to non-participants to tell them that it looks to board staff like the non-participating farmer has irrigated lands and asking the reason they're not involved. The board said the total number of farmers that could participate in a watershed coalition, but have not, totals about 30 percent of farms considered likely.

"What we're finding is that a number of these people would be good candidates to be in a coalition," Karkoski said. "It's a much more efficient way for us to run the program and more cost effective for the farmer. That's why we're proposing to provide greater allowance for people to join coalitions late."

In addition, a grower joining a coalition late will need to pay any back dues owed to the coalition and pay annual fees after enrolling under the coalition group waiver.

Separate from these charges are recommended fees that could take effect as soon as July 1 that will cover administrative costs for processing an application from a farmer not currently enrolled in a coalition.

In announcing the proposed modifications to the current rules to allow farmers to join a coalition now, after the initial deadline, the board noted that an increasing number of growers are now willing to participate through an extended deadline in a coalition group.

"The change we're making to the discharge waiver is that we want to make it easier for folks to join" Karkoski. "If a farmer hasn't been part of a coalition before then they will have to apply to us to join and we would need to grant approval."

He said being part of a coalition is better for farmers because they can work with local people that are familiar with local operations for water monitoring and correcting water quality problems. It's the coalition then that interacts with the regional board, not the farmer. There are tremendous cost savings in this group approach, Karkoski said.

If the regulatory exercise provides sufficient data for the board to make informed decisions about the impact of discharges on water quality and the overall environment, then the program will be successful, he said.

"With most of the coalitions, they're generating high quality information that's clearly identifying where there are water quality problems," Karkoski said. "In some cases we're finding the problems aren't necessarily due to agriculture. In other cases it's clearly related to farming."

He said in those cases where agriculture is implicated the board expects the coalitions to start working with their growers to correct problems.

"Growers have shown that this framework can be a successful way to identify potential problems," Karkoski said. "Now the individual growers will need to be engaged in solving those problems. The coalitions can't do that. They can collect the money and the data, but the individual farmer is the one who has to take action to improve water quality. For us as an agency the true measure of success is getting the problem fixed. That's what we're looking for."

For more information on the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program requirements and proposed modifications, go to www.waterboards.ca.gov.

(Kate Campbell is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at kcampbell@cfbf.com.)