|
California dairy groups are urging state water regulators to simplify a proposed groundwater protection order. The overlapping directives, pond requirements and uncertain compliance costs could accelerate the loss and consolidation of Central Valley dairies, they warn.
The revised order is an improvement over the version released in 2024, according to Dairy Cares. The industry group supports narrowing the order to the Central Valley, while recognizing manure as a valuable crop nutrient and incorporating the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability program, or CV-SALTS.
Yet Tess Dunham, a water attorney at Kahn, Soares & Conway, argued the proposal remains unnecessarily complex, since it directs the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to issue five sets of information orders, complete two scientific peer reviews, and develop both interim and final waste discharge requirements.
Dunham said each information order would require education and outreach, consultant work and new responses from hundreds of dairies, even when the regional board may already possess much of the requested information. She called for the State Water Resources Control Board to develop a single revised dairy permit and give the regional board greater discretion over which operations need additional information.
The order would require improved nitrogen reporting within one year, interim permit revisions in three to four years, and final requirements in seven to eight years. The eventual rules would limit how much nitrogen could be applied to cropland and bring dairy discharges into compliance with the groundwater drinking water standard.
The industry also objects to provisions distinguishing between existing, new, expanded and consolidated dairies. Portions of a dairy expanded after a specified date could be treated as a new operation and required to comply immediately with the most protective land application requirement then in effect.
Dunham said that approach could subject different portions of the same herd to separate compliance schedules. She also questioned requiring expanded operations to meet standards before regulators know whether the treatment technology and manure markets needed for compliance are broadly available.
Tess Dunham (Kahn, Soares & Conway photo)The industry’s most immediate objections centered on manure retention ponds. Paul Sousa, who directs environmental services at Western United Dairies, noted that lagoons accounted for about 4% of estimated dairy nitrogen loading in a 2019 monitoring report, with most losses associated with manure applications to cropland. Since then, he said, about 180 digesters have been built or are under development with double-lined ponds and leak collection systems.
Sousa asked the board to eliminate mandatory seepage testing for ponds that do not have hydraulic continuity with groundwater. He argued that the testing is not widely available, may be feasible at only a fraction of dairies, and would divert money from projects capable of delivering larger nitrate reductions.
Fourth-generation Turlock dairyman Justin Gioletti offered his operation as an example. His family milks about 3,700 cows, farms roughly 2,000 acres and supports 50 employees. Its 12-acre pond was built in 2003 with an imported clay liner and sits above the groundwater table.
Gioletti estimated that relining the pond could cost more than $2 million and require taking it offline for months, creating storage and permitting problems. Such a project would generate no additional farm revenue, he said, making conventional financing difficult to obtain.
“There needs to be a balance between the cost of compliance and economic feasibility on the farm level to ensure our longevity,” Gioletti said.
Duncan MacEwan, a founding partner of ERA Economics, warned the order would add to rising labor, energy and regulatory costs as dairies also confront pumping fees and water reductions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Smaller dairies are less able to absorb major capital investments, he said, increasing the likelihood that they will close, relocate or sell to larger operations.
California Dairy Campaign Executive Director Lynne McBride said milk prices have recently fallen below average production costs while lenders are offering dairy farmers less favorable credit terms. She urged the board to tie major deadlines to grants, cost sharing or affordable financing rather than assume farmers can borrow their way into compliance.
Regional board challenges workload assumptions
The industry’s implementation concerns received unusual reinforcement from Patrick Pulupa, executive officer of the Central Valley regional board that would be responsible for carrying out most of the order.
Pulupa said the state and regional boards are more closely aligned than at any point in his nearly 20-year career on the need to protect drinking water, reduce nitrate contamination and improve dairy manure management. Yet he said the draft was developed without meaningful participation from regional staff who inspect dairies, evaluate ponds and enforce the existing requirements.
“They’ve been prevented from having anything to do with the drafting of this order, and it shows,” Pulupa said.
The regional board’s dairy program has about 10 staff members and cannot absorb the number of information orders, pond investigations and permit revisions envisioned under the proposed schedule. He particularly questioned requiring widespread seepage tests that he said would consume substantial staff time without clearly demonstrating compliance with groundwater standards.
A previous regional effort to investigate 71 potentially connected ponds in Madera County consumed the equivalent of nearly two full-time staff positions for two years, he said, while bringing only a handful of ponds into the desired condition. Applying a similar process to several hundred ponds across the Central Valley would require multiple enforcement teams.
Patrick Pulupa (Central Valley water board photo)Pulupa also cautioned that requiring the regional board to adopt an interim permit and return several years later for a final permit would duplicate environmental review, public outreach and administrative work. He advocated for developing one coordinated permit built around the information regulators actually need.
He was careful to defend the regional board’s record, pointing to dairy closures, pond improvements and enforcement actions over the past two decades and objected to language suggesting dairy discharges had continued unabated under regional oversight.
Pulupa called for state and regional staff to develop a unified strategy, saying the strongest water board programs have combined statewide policy expertise with the experience of regional employees who carry out inspections and enforcement.
State board signals openness to streamlining
State board members did not commit to specific changes, but several appeared receptive to reducing the order’s administrative burden without loosening its ultimate groundwater protections or allowing the process to slip further.
Board member Sean Maguire said the state needs reliable baseline data on whether dairies are complying with the existing nitrogen application standard. But he questioned whether every proposed information order must occur before the regional board updates the dairy permit.
Drawing on his background as a project manager, Maguire said some data requests could be delayed or incorporated into the permit itself, rather than competing with the regional board’s environmental review and rule development.
Maguire further singled out seepage testing for scrutiny. Because the tests would generally apply to ponds already considered disconnected from groundwater, he questioned the environmental benefits.
Maguire also believed the board should consider the economic pressures from SGMA and other regulations and ensure that each mandate provides a meaningful water quality return. He stressed, however, that the petition over the existing dairy rules has already taken far too long and said he wants to keep the final order on track.
Board member Nicole Morgan similarly called for an order that is adoptable, enforceable and clear to regional staff who were not involved in drafting it.
Chair Joaquin Esquivel pressed the industry on whether the definitions for consolidated dairies could be refined to distinguish operations that increase nitrogen discharges from those moving cows onto land with better infrastructure. Esquivel echoed the call for streamlining while emphasizing the need to move quickly enough to protect communities that have waited years for safe drinking water.
The board is accepting written comments through July 30 and has scheduled a Sept. 15 vote on a final order. Maguire said the remaining challenge is to simplify the process without losing the clear direction and deadlines needed to finally move dairy regulation forward.
“This is a really big deal,” he said, “I want to make sure we’re being thoughtful in the final order.”
For more news, explore Agri-Pulse.com.
