Local ag leaders, supervisors say proposed water monitoring
rules are too restrictive
Citing the potential for lost revenues as well as a reduction in
productive farm land, the county Board of Supervisors is joining
with the local farm bureau to speak out against a plan to require a
buffer zone between ag land and water tributaries while adding
stricter water-quality monitoring requirements.
Supervisors this week approved sending a letter to the Central
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board expressing concern about
proposed rules that would require a 100-foot buffer between
agricultural operations and rivers, streams and other waterways
along with the more stringent monitoring rules. Specifically, they
are asking for an extension of a five-year waiver that has allowed
farmers and landowners to be a part of a coalition that does
monitoring at points throughout a watershed, rather than on every
farm through which water runs.
Local ag leaders, supervisors say proposed water monitoring rules are too restrictive
Citing the potential for lost revenues as well as a reduction in productive farm land, the county Board of Supervisors is joining with the local farm bureau to speak out against a plan to require a buffer zone between ag land and water tributaries while adding stricter water-quality monitoring requirements.
Supervisors this week approved sending a letter to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board expressing concern about proposed rules that would require a 100-foot buffer between agricultural operations and rivers, streams and other waterways along with the more stringent monitoring rules. Specifically, they are asking for an extension of a five-year waiver that has allowed farmers and landowners to be a part of a coalition that does monitoring at points throughout a watershed, rather than on every farm through which water runs.
Proposed changes would require that every landowner or farmer pay for and conduct monitoring along waterways near all farming operations, which many say would be too restrictive and cost-prohibitive.
“Unfortunately, in San Benito’s case, there are a lot of farmers that really would be hurt by the cost of individually monitoring water quality,” said county Supervisor Anthony Botelho, a farmer who represents the San Juan Valley.
He said that the coalition approach to monitoring, where water quality is monitored throughout a watershed rather than at every point of contact with ag land, has brought together constituencies that don’t always see eye-to-eye.
“Five years ago, the ag community and the environmental and regulatory communities came together and worked out their needs and that was the basis of the first ag waiver,” said Botelho, who pays approximately $150 per year to be a part of the water-monitoring coalition. “It was a very unique partnership to improve water quality along the Central Coast. I’m worried now that if we get overly restrictive, we’re going to lose those relationships and partnerships that have been forged.”
A draft of a letter to the regional water quality control board from the Board of Supervisors and signed by Chairman Reb Monaco, said the proposal for stricter monitoring requirements and buffer zones “could have serious economic impacts to our local economy.”
“As written, this plan would result in the loss of some of our best farm ground by requiring a buffer zone around these tributaries,” the letter said. “A loss of local farm ground would cause an economic chain of events which could be felt throughout the county.”
Local officials contend that the northwest area of the county – particularly the San Juan Valley – has the type of soils, weather, water supplies and infrastructure that support intensive agriculture. It also has a number of water tributaries in the region, meaning the buffer zone rules could take a number of acres out of production, adversely affecting the economy.
Limiting the use of land near waterways, the letter contends, puts the regional water quality control board in a position of regulating land use, something that is already done by the county’s general plan.
“We question if another layer of governmental regulation is desirable for the local economy and the public in general,” the letter stated. “A healthy agricultural economy is a key ingredient to a healthy local economy. While water quality indeed is an important part of the county health, any additional regulation must be reviewed carefully to ensure that it is actually effective and will continue to contribute to the overall health of the community.”
The water quality control board said its draft plans, which are open for public comment through June 4, address agricultural-related water quality issues caused by irrigation runoff and percolation to groundwater supplies.
“In the Central Coast region, the impairment is well documented, it is severe, it is widespread, it impacts nearly all beneficial uses of water, and it is continuing,” according to a press release from the water board. “Immediate action is necessary to resolve the water quality impairments and prevent further degradation of beneficial uses.”
The water quality control board is responsible for protecting and restoring water quality in the 300-mile-long coastal region from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to the northern part of Ventura County.
The San Benito County Farm Bureau, in a letter to Botelho, said the effects of the proposed rules “will be devastating if implemented as-is.” The bureau cited “arduous reporting requirements” that would be “overly burdensome” and also warned that packers might shift winter-grown crops to other areas of the United States or Mexico, where compliance requirements are different.
The farm bureau said estimated business revenue losses could approach $300 million in the Central Coast region that stretches from Santa Clara to Santa Barbara County. Compliance costs associated with the waterway buffer zone rules could exceed the median sales revenue of half of the growers in most counties, the bureau claims.
“This will unfairly target small, family-owned farms that are the heart of San Benito,” the letter stated.
Botelho said the current ag waiver should be given more time.
“Best management practices on most farms have been improved,” he said. “A handful of folks haven’t complied, but I think case by case there have been significant improvements with water quality. I would hope they’d extend it another five years and do a little more outreach for the handful of properties that aren’t in compliance. With that, you’re able to take a little better look at areas where we can realistically improve water quality instead of putting a blanket over the entire region.”
Extensive buffer zones restricting farming near waterways “won’t work in this county,” Botelho said, “because we have a number of waterways. It would make a lot of land un-farmable.”
“We want to make sure the [water quality control board] understands that San Benito County wants to work with all parties to make sure we protect our resources and maintain partnerships,” he said.
