Education For Environmental Responsibility

Runoff Into Rivers Faces New Restrictions

This article appeared in California Farmer magazine in March, 1999

By Parry Klassen

George knows it’s hard to get good spray coverage on his almond trees next to the river. So he drives extra slow, blasting the mist up and over the tree tops, with some of the spray drifting down into the river.

Downstream from where George is spraying, an automated water monitoring device gathers its hourly water sample from the river. The drift from George’s application made 30 minutes earlier is detected by the device, which sounds an alarm at the county agriculture commissioner’s office. An office staffer quickly pulls up the day’s application permits and finds George’s permit for spraying the almond orchard upstream from the monitor. By the time George pulls his tractor into the yard, a deputy from the ag commissioner’s office is waiting.

This fictional account of a grower being caught for drifting pesticides into a river may seem a bit far-fetched. But if development of new surface water quality regulations continues at its current pace, ole’ George could be facing some aspects of this situation sooner than most farmers think.

In its broadest definition, George’s spray drift contributed to what regulators call non-point source pollution. If George did a sloppy job mixing and loading his sprayer and rain later washes the residues into the river, that too is considered non-point source pollution. Runoff from irrigation or heavy rains also carries that designation if the runoff contains pesticides, nutrients, or silt.

Non-point source pollution, be it from farms, ranches, or urban centers, is now in the regulatory cross hairs, and in some instances, the trigger is being squeezed. Driving the issue is a myriad of Federal and State laws and agencies, chief of which are the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In the tributaries flowing into the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, a growing concern is non-point source pollution made up of pesticides and nutrients originating from farming activities. And it’s not just diazinon runoff from dormant orchard sprays or herbicides from rice fields, two problems where significant advances have been made in recent years. Water samples taken from Central Valley rivers and streams by the US Geological Survey showed more than 20 widely used insecticides, miticides and herbicides in the water. While none of the samples exceeded drinking water standards, some did exceed criteria for protection of aquatic life. These detections have gotten the attention of pesticide manufacturers, farm groups and regulators.

"The USGS numbers are a very good indication of what is out there and it should bring some concern to the agricultural community," says Doug Okumura, Acting Assistant Director of the Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring and Data Management at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).

Concern is, in fact, an understatement. Driven by impending surface water regulations and increased activist rumblings, a number of ag groups and government agencies have already initiated programs ranging from grower outreach efforts to organizing watershed working groups. Their goals focus on two areas: changing farming practices that might cause inadvertent non-point source pollution and protecting farmers who aren’t contributing to the problem.

"The EPA and environmental community are really beginning to hone in on non-point source pollution, and there is an unsupported belief that agriculture is the only culprit," says Ronda Lucas, Director, Forestry and Natural Resources at the California Farm Bureau Federation. "To prove this, we want to provide farmers with whatever tools are necessary to assess their watersheds and identify potential problems. More importantly, we want farmers to get credit for what they are doing right by devising an easy monitoring plan that proves agriculture isn’t the only culprit."

Tracing the origins of non-point source pollution then deciding how to regulate it is proving tougher than anyone could have imagined. The most significant surface water law is the Clean Water Act of 1972, which is implemented nationally by EPA. At the state level, the water quality enforcement falls to the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Since DPR is the lead agency for regulating pesticides in the state, an agreement was formed with the Water Board to let DPR take a lead role in solving the non-point source pollution problem as it relates to pesticides.

A key concept in the Clean Water Act is "Total Maximum Daily Load," better known as TMDL. A TMDL is a numeric target for pollutants or "stressors" that a water body is allowed to have. A TMDL is required when a body of water is determined to be "impaired." This impairment can be caused by silt, nutrients, temperature, or pesticides – among other things -- at levels out of compliance with the Clean Water Act. A TMDL, as its name indicates, is the total load from pollutants moving into a river each day by urban storm water discharges, waste water treatment plants, or non-point sources such as agriculture.

If a river or stream is deemed to be "impaired," a TMDL must be developed. Next, the plan to bring that water body back into compliance must also be developed and implemented.

That’s where DPR is today with diazinon, an insecticide whose detection in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and several tributaries was traced back to drift and runoff from dormant orchard applications. During the development of TMDLs for diazinon, DPR wants to work with grower groups and others to develop mitigation measures, which could include best management practices (BMPs), changes in the product label, or other regulatory approaches to ensure the rivers are brought back into compliance. This will continue work to reduce diazinon detection levels started several years back by Novartis, the product manufacturer, and commodity groups, including the Almond Board and Cling Peach Advisory Board, when the problem was first discovered.

"Developing a TMDL is supposed to be a stakeholder-driven process," says Okumura. "It’s going to be an arduous process and I’m hoping farmers and their representatives along with all other interested parties will attend the public meetings. Ultimately, the decisions are going to have an impact on farmers."

Since setting a TMDL for diazinon would be the first such standard developed for a pesticide in California or the country as a whole, DPR officials believe the process will serve as the template for future TMDLs in the state. "We’re hoping to use all the best science available to set that level," adds Marshall Lee, Associate Environmental Research Scientist at DPR. To that end, Lee is overseeing development of a database at DPR that will serve as a repository for all reliable data on surface water sampling done in the state for diazinon and other products.

An unsettling development on TMDLs is a rash of lawsuits filed by activist groups intended to force EPA into creating TMDLs for dozens of rivers around the country, including some in California. To date, more than 25 lawsuits have been filed and of those resolved, all settled in favor of the complainant. Many fear that using litigation to form policy will force EPA to act too quickly on developing TMDLs, foregoing adequate and thorough scientific study in favor of expediency. To prevent such a reaction, farm and industry groups in recent months have begun formulating plans to get ahead of the issue before regulations are finalized.

One such plan under development by the California Farm Bureau is called the Nonpoint Source Initiative and Strategy 2000. This plan lays the framework for farmers to organize themselves into watershed working groups and begin gathering water quality data specific to their area.

"As we studied this issue, we found very little quantifiable, scientifically valid data about water quality and non-point source pollution," says Lucas. "What it’s coming to is that farmers need this data to prove they are innocent. EPA and the public are pointing a finger at agriculture without the data to back it up. If we can’t defend ourselves and show data that proves we are not guilty, we will be regulated."

Another effort underway to promote best management practices that help minimize off-site movement of pesticides and nutrients is sponsored by CURES (Coalition For Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship). CURES is a non-profit education organization established in 1997 as the stewardship arm of the Western Crop Protection Association (WCPA). In addition to co-sponsoring grower meetings on the water quality issue with Farm Bureau, CURES is publishing booklets describing practices to help protect water quality. Subjects include mixing and loading pesticides, managing spray drift from air blast and ground application equipment, and controlling irrigation runoff. The group is also organizing sprayer calibration clinics in the Central Valley in conjunction with University Cooperative Extension.

Okumura agrees that the word on protecting water quality needs to get out to farmers, and quick. "The education and outreach component is absolutely critical when we finalize the mitigation measures. One of our biggest problems is explaining the potential problem and the consequences of not following these mitigation measures."

Ranchers in the Garcia River region of Northern California got a taste of what can happen if TMDL development and implementation is forced by lawsuits. Environmental groups recently filed suit against EPA demanding that TMDLs be set for 17 rivers in California. Since the Garcia River was first on the list, the Northwest Regional Water Quality Control Board focussed on that river as a test case. Recently, the Water Board presented ranchers and loggers with three yet-to-be-finalized options: stop all sediment discharge into the river; follow a basin-wide plan written by the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff that includes measures such as no commercial land management activities within 25 feet of the riparian area bordering the river and its tributaries and no use of heavy equipment between October 15 and May 1;
or each landowner submit a plan that includes extensive water monitoring, detailed description of remediation efforts, annual progress reports, and public access to those records. And the Water Board must first approve the plan before it can be implemented.

Where Farm Bureau hopes to help farmers in other regions of the state is organizing watershed working groups that can prepare for the inevitable TMDL steamroller. Key leaders in this effort include Lucas, Carolyn Richardson, Director, Department of Environmental Advocacy, and Tess Dennis, Director of Environmental Protection, all three who are Farm Bureau water experts based in Sacramento. "We hope to provide farmers and ranchers all the technical and informational tools they need to fix the problem themselves," says Lucas. A first step, she adds, is studying a "how-to" manual available at every county Farm Bureau office in the state. This manual provides contact information of local water quality experts and describes how to form the watershed working group.

Many experts believe that use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) could go a long way to reduce non-point source pollution into surface waters. In fact, one USDA agency provides not only expertise in BMPs but has some funding available for farmers to implement the practices. "We work best management practices into every conservation plan we write," says Michael McElhiney, Stanislaus County Conservationist for the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation District. "These plans alone have a lot of value, especially if someone points a finger at you about a certain farming practice." Conservation plans include detailed description of everything from irrigation practices to how pesticides are handled and applied.

Last year, grower and ranchers in Stanislaus, San Joaquin and Merced counties received more than $600,000 in funding from the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). McElhiney encourages growers to apply for those limited funds to help defray the cost of changing farming practices.

"We have a whole suite of BMPs that meet a variety of conditions that exist on a farm. They may not solve all the problems but if we can get stewardship ingrained into farmers, we know the trend will get better," says McElhiney.

So, can growers and ranchers avoid this approaching surface water storm in California? A water expert with DowAgro Sciences who has followed the issue around the country for years offers an unqualified "no way." However, there is a chance to soften the impact.

"If growers and industry get engaged early, they can help shape the process, avoiding a strictly regulatory solution," says Dr. Bryan Stuart, Manager of Government Relations for Dow AgroSciences in Sacramento. "But two important things need to happen quickly. First, we need to make sure that good science is used as these regulatory decisions are made. Second, we need to start implementing practices to reduce the amount of pesticides getting into surface water. And that effort has to begin now."

The reporter can be reached at parryk@curesworks.org or (559) 325-9855.