Agricultural expert panel finalizes nitrogen-report recommendations and approves report for June 16 State Board briefing

The State Water Resources Control Board's agricultural expert panel voted unanimously on June 5 to approve a final recommendations report that lays out technical guidance on measuring and managing nitrogen applied to farmland and options for alternative reporting and monitoring in some regions.

The panel's recommendation package, finalized during a full-day plenary meeting, does not itself set regulatory limits. Panelists and staff said the document will be presented to the State Water Board at its regular meeting on June 16, when board members can ask questions and provide direction to staff about next steps, including whether to pursue statewide regulatory action.

Why it matters: the report addresses whether available applied and removed nitrogen (A and R) data are sufficient to justify regulatory limits designed to protect groundwater, and how to treat small or diversified farms and other operations (nurseries, organic/regenerative farms) that face measurement or implementation challenges. Panelists emphasized the technical feasibility of some limits, but noted resource, regional and legal complexities that remain for the State Board to resolve.

Panel chair Dr. Daniel Gistler and Chief Deputy Director Karen Mogus (State Water Board) told the panel the staff response to the report could fall into three categories: tighten implementation of the current program, pursue targeted information orders or similar regulatory steps, or begin a longer rulemaking to consider numeric limits and related policies.

The panel spent much of the morning and afternoon line-editing the draft report. Members agreed on several clarifications and additions: replace the vague phrase "unreasonably low" with more specific flags for values that are physically or agronomically implausible or economically infeasible; add guidance on verification options (in-season and post-harvest soil nitrate testing, representative soil monitoring); and enlarge text on how regional boards may tailor reduced-risk categories to local conditions.

On small, diversified farms the panel endorsed a regional, factor-based approach rather than a single, nationwide exemption. The draft language the panel discussed uses a baseline definition (a suggested starting point discussed was a maximum of 80 acres, at least five different crops grown simultaneously and no more than a two-acre contiguous plot for any one crop), then lets regions choose which combination of factors (cover crops, compost use, drip irrigation, frequent soil or plant testing, low synthetic N inputs, etc.) and thresholds will qualify for reduced reporting or alternative pathways.

Nurseries and greenhouse operations: the panel added examples of monitoring approaches that may be appropriate at the regional level. For container nurseries that capture drainage and reapply or that sit on impervious surfaces, representative runoff sampling and measurement of total nitrogen may be more useful than farm-scale A/R mass balances. Panelists urged further research before recommending a single industry-wide standard.

Data transparency: the panel agreed it "is not opposed to additional reporting transparency where regional boards and stakeholders select to do so," while also noting concerns about privacy, unintended consequences and the need for regional frameworks to balance transparency with feasible reporting requirements.

Public comment: dozens of written and oral commenters supported the panel's work but also urged the State Board to use the report to move promptly toward numeric limits and clear time schedules in regions where data show groundwater impacts. Several commenters from affected communities said some areas already have unsafe nitrate in drinking water and asked the Board to direct regional boards to act quickly.

Formal action: the panel voted to approve the recommendations report as amended during the plenary. The motion was made and seconded on the record; all members present voted in favor. The report will be uploaded and provided to the State Board as an informational item on June 16.

What comes next: staff told the panel the State Board's response could include immediate implementation steps (tightening reporting and data submission), targeted regulatory orders (for additional information), and, if the board directs it, a longer public rulemaking on numeric interim or final limits. Any decision about numeric limits or statewide requirements will be taken by the full State Board through its public process.

Panelists and staff repeatedly urged that implementation depend on adequate resources for regional boards, grower coalitions and third-party technical assistance providers to carry out monitoring, verification and outreach. Chief Deputy Director Karen Mogus said regional boards currently lack resources and that funding could derive from a mix of fees, grants or legislative appropriations.

The panel's report and the record of comments will be available with the State Board packet prior to the June 16 meeting; panelists noted the report's edits and accepted changes will be finalized in the posted version.

"This has been a long process and a lot of hard work," Chief Deputy Director Karen Mogus said at the meeting. "We look forward to presenting the report to the board on June 16th and to the public process that will follow."