Parry Klassen Executive Director

Transcription

1 Water Quality Driving Shift in Priorities to Drinking Water Parry Klassen Executive Director

2 2

3 GRAND TOTAL NET 565 3, ,794 Central Coast Groundwater Coalition Membership Data February 28, 2014 Memberships Parcels Acreage Monterey 142 1, ,879 San Benito ,762 Santa Clara ,237 Santa Cruz ,063 NORTH NET TOTALS 317 2, ,942 San Luis Obispo ,296 Santa Barbara ,019 Ventura SOUTH NET TOTALS 248 1,158 62,852

4 CCGC Staff and Consultants Parry Klassen, Executive Director Kara Stuart, Membership Manager Michael L. Johnson, LLC. Michael Johnson, Melissa Turner Technical program manager HydroFocus, Inc. Steve Deverel Manages Groundwater Sampling Program (in conjunction with MLJ) Abby Taylor-Silva Secretary/Treasurer of CCGC Grower-Shipper of Central California

5 In operation since 2003 Non profit 501c5 entity 3,949 Landowner / operators 719,446 irrigated acres ESJWQC Overview Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Mariposa counties We manage group permit for our members

6 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Bruce Houdesheldt Central Valley Coalitions California Rice Commission Tim Johnson Goose Lake Water Quality Coalition San Joaquin County & Delta Water Quality Coalition Michael Wackman Westside San Joaquin River Watershed Coalition Joseph C. McGahan David Cory East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition Parry Klassen Wayne Zipser Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition David Orth Westlands Coalition Sue Ramos

7 Coalition Participation and Spending 7 million irrigated acres in Central Valley 6+ million acres enrolled in current program Coalition spending : $31.8 million Raised thru dues of $2-4/acre annually Paid for: Water/Sediment monitoring Reports to Regional Water Board Member outreach and education Includes 75 cents per acre per year paid to State Water Board

8

9 Focused Outreach Approach Watershed Management Plans Identify members with parcels adjacent to waterways ESJWQC individual member meetings Management practices survey Monitoring Follow up Document changes in management practices Evaluate progress

10

11 Waste Discharge Requirements Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program ESJWQC WDR adopted December 7, 2012 First of seven third party coalitions to get WDR Second WDR : South San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition (adopted September 19, 2013) Third WDR: Westside San Joaquin River Water Quality Coalition (adopted January 9, 2014) Remainder of CV Coalitions adopted by July

12 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Member Responsibilities Complete Farm Evaluation (everyone) Annual Nitrogen Management Plan In high vulnerability groundwater area; submit to ESJ annually Signed by CCA or grower with certification Annual reporting of Nitrogen fertilizers applied Sediment and Erosion Control Plan In areas identified as high vulnerability for erosion and sediment discharge Participate in annual outreach events 12

13 Central Valley Ambient Shallow Groundwater Quality (Shallow Wells ) NO 3 -N 13

14 High Vulnerability Areas

15 Central Coast Water Board Focus on Nitrates in Domestic Wells State Water Board decision on September 24 Required CCGC to sample all member domestic wells Growers performing individual monitoring required to do the same Notify occupants if nitrates above drinking water standard Sampled 950 domestic wells as of November 1, 2014

16

17 Wells Sampled in Salinas Valley

18 Wells Sampled in Southern Counties San Luis Obispo/Los Osos Santa Maria San Antonio Lompoc/Santa Inez

19 Central Coast Groundwater Monitoring Domestic Well Results Rounds 1-12 Samples from October 21, June 27, 2014 Summary of Exceedances % of total Wells Exceedance nitrate drinking water standard 31% % of MCL 3% 17 Below MCL 66% 416 Total 627

20 User Notification Users of wells in exceedance of nitrates must be notified within 10 days of learning of the exceedance. Notification Fedex d to members; 30 days to reply back about notification action; replacement water source CCGC collects information to avoid Board staff follow-up. Verification forms sent with exceedance packet

21 Replacement Water Follow-up No legal obligation Failure to report action will prompt follow-up from Regional Board staff CCGC committed to being the buffer between our members and the Board Form to report replacement/treatment action included in exceedance packet

22 Replacement Water Response Summary Rounds 1-12 Samples from October 21, June 27, 2014 Summary of Member Responses Members Wells Total Number of Exceedances Number of Responses Responses Pending 0 0 Summary of Member Actions Action Taken Number of Wells Bottled Water Provided 91 Not Used for Drinking 28 RO Unit Installed 67 Filtration System Added 5 Replacement Water Refused by User 3 Not responded 0 Grand Total 194

23 Nitrate concentrations and delineations of areas with varying concentration ranges

24 Why The Focus on Nitrates in Groundwater? Central Valley: 2003 ILRP started on surface water; Water Board always intended to add groundwater regulations 2012 UC Davis Report to CA Legislature Thomas Harter report Activists increasing focus on disadvantaged communities drinking water high in nitrates 2013 CA legislature had multiple bills on correcting drinking water problems statewide 24

25

26 Known Nitrate Sources (Regional) Figure 1. Estimated groundwater nitrate loading from major sources within the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley, in Gg nitrogen per year (1 Gg = 1,100 t). ; Viers, J.H., et al (2012). Nitrogen Sources and Loading to Groundwater 26

27

28 State Water Board Takes on Nitrogen Reporting Taking approach from Recommendations Addressing Nitrate in Groundwater (SWRCB) CDFA to form Task Force Develop Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting System Recommendations completed in December 2013 Expert Panel Panel will answer questions posed by advisory group Timeline: formed in April 2014; completed final report in September 2014 SB staff recommendations expected March 2015

29 Tracking and Reporting System Structure Growers collect a number of types of crop and fieldspecific information on an event basis to enable calculation of nitrogen mass balance (the quantity of nitrogen applied minus the quantity of nitrogen removed). The difference represents nitrogen that is not currently accounted for, including but not limited to nitrogen available for leaching to groundwater. Much of the tracking data are retained on farm; a subset is compiled by crop and field at the farm scale and annually reported upward to a data aggregator. The data aggregator annually compiles and reports data submitted by numerous growers into a single combined report for a larger geographic area as designated by the relevant Regional Water Board. The Regional Water Board provides to the State Water Board the information necessary to compile an annual report on status and trends with respect to management and the fate of nitrogen applied in irrigated agriculture. The narrowing of the pyramid reflects increasing consolidation of information and larger geographic units of analysis as the information moves upward through the system from grower to State Water Board.

30 State Water Board Expert Panel Cal Poly SLO Assembled and Directed Eight Participants Dr. Charles Burt (Panel Chairman) Irrigation Specialist/Ag Engineer Dr. Robert Hutmacher Soil Scientist Till Angerman Hydrogeologist Bill Brush Certified Crop Advisor Daniel Munk UC Cooperative Extension James dubois Grower, Central Coast Region Mark McKean Grower, Central Valley Region Dr. Lowell Zelinski Agronomist Convened Sessions on May Public Workshops held Draft Report Due June 30 with 30-day comment period Draft Report Public Meeting: July 18 Final Report presented to State Water Board September 23, 2014

31 State Water Board Expert Panel May 5, 2014; Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

32 Expert Panel Recommendation: Report A/R Ratio A = Nitrogen Applied Nitrogen applied can include nitrogen from any source R = Nitrogen Removed Nitrogen removed via harvest + Nitrogen sequestered in the permanent wood of perennial crops) Recommend ratio be averaged over multiple years

33 Ratio Recommended by Expert Panel More discussion needed on the best ratio to use Other approach developed in conjunction with: Coalitions CDFA UC Considerations for choosing an approach Accuracy of estimates Ease of calculations Comparison among of same crop in different conditions Need to demonstrate that the nitrogen management approach is protective of groundwater

34 Long Term Goal N Reporting is First Step Nitrogen Loads Documentation Record Nitrogen Use/Ratios Outreach to Growers Evaluate ratios, identify outliers, and conduct outreach to reduce nitrogen load to groundwater Additional Research Management Practice Effectiveness Program (MPEP) and additional research on nitrogen management Assessment of how much nitrogen is moving into groundwater due to agricultural practices 34

35 Focus on N Best Management Practices Assumption: What s past is done Groundwater remediation not practical Going Forward Nitrogen Management Optimize Applications Match fertilizer application to crop use Manage irrigations to minimize leaching Removal Replacemen

36 4R Nutrient Stewardship: Simple to grasp continuous improvement

37 Nitrogen Management Plan Components Apply N at crop removal rates Dairies regulated to 140% of crop use (N applications) Test well water for nitrogen levels Then adjust N applications accordingly) Track nitrogen use over time

38 Grape Phenology & Nutrient Uptake General Nitrogen Requirement of Grapevine Dormant Bud Burst Flowering Berry Fill Veraison Post Harvest YARA

39 Daily N uptake: Sweet Corn

40 Focus of Best Management Practices Wellhead Protection Theme: Good House Keeping Prevent ponding for extended periods Waste can enter if wellhead/casing is cracked or improperly sealed Grade away from wellhead to prevent storm runoff ponding Open discharge well Air gap between well discharge and receiving device Pressurized systems: Back flow preventers Abandoned wells Properly destroyed

41 Management Practice Effectiveness Program Confirm that management practices implemented to improve groundwater quality are working Are agricultural management practices protective of groundwater? Modify practices if needed Implemented by CV Coalitions either individually or combined effort Proposing coordinated effort by coalitions/commodity groups to complete Share study expenses among coalitions willing to collaborate ESJWQC forming group made up of Westside and Delta Coalition CURES USDA project to be starting point for approach Literature search Interview experts in field Performing field instrument evaluation through CDFA grant

42 Establishing cost efficient methods to measure nitrate movement beyond the root zone when using nutrient BMPs in California Specialty Crops Project Goal: CURES project Funded by USDA/CDFA Specialty Crop Block Grant Establish one or more reliable, repeatable scientific methods to characterize movement of nitrogen fertilizers beyond the plant root zone Crops: walnuts and broccoli/lettuce (and other specialty crops from Central Valley and Central Coast)

43 How do we measure nitrates past the root zone? Soil pore water sampler

44 How do we measure nitrates past the root zone? Soil pore water sampler

45 Soil pore water sampler

46 Water Quality Driving Shift in Priorities to Drinking Water Continued focus on domestic well nitrate levels Replacement water will become requirement More scrutiny on N source control Continued refinement of BMPs for nitrogen applications on all crops

47 Parry Klassen