1. General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations within the Santa Ana Region Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2013-0001 June 7, 2013

2. Where are we and how did we get here? Permit Development Drafts – December 4, 2012 – March 12, 2013 – April 29, 2013 Built on Order No. R8-2007- 0001 – Integrated the IRDMP Participants US EPA, Region IX Inland Empire Waterkeeper Western Riverside County Agricultural Coalition Western United Dairymen Milk Producers Council Roger Turner

3. Agricultural Nitrate Pollution “Nitrate pollution in groundwater is a widespread water quality problem that can pose serious health risks to pregnant women and infants if consumed at concentrations above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 45 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (as NO3) set by the California Department of Public Health.” “Nitrates are the most frequently detected anthropogenic chemical above an MCL in drinking water sources. “ -SWRCB Report to Legislature, 4

4. Communities and Groundwater Contamination California’s Ten Most Frequently Detected Principal Contaminants – Nitrate: 451 wells, 205 Community Water Systems Top 15 Counties with the Greatest Number of Community Water Systems that Rely on Contaminated Groundwater for Drinking Water – San Bernardino: Ranks 3 rd – Riverside: Ranks 5 th

8. Agricultural Nitrogen Cycle

9. The Costs of Nitrate Pollution Case Study: Minnesota – Ellsworth, Minn. Community funded nitrate-removal system Treatment = $5.71 per 1,000 gallons of water Similar communities without nitrate removal = $0.05-.10 per 1,000 gallons of water Source: David Pitt, Iowa copes with nitrate surge in drinking water, AP (Jun. 5., 2013)

10. Waterkeeper’s Concerns Antidegradation Antibacksliding Public Participation Enforcement

11. Antidegradation

12. Antidegradation Policy Protects existing uses and water quality necessary to support existing uses, or, for “high quality” waters, protects water quality better than necessary for “fishable/swimmable” uses. Water quality may only be lowered in certain limited circumstances. In no case may water quality be lowered to a level which would interfere with existing or designated uses. See, State Bd. Res. No. 68-16; 40 CFR § 131.12

13. What does the Antidegradation Policy Require? Three Tiered Approach – Tier I: Protect Existing Uses – Tier II: Maintain ‘high quality’ waters – Tier III: Protect ‘outstanding’ waters

14. What does the Antidegradation Policy Require? Three Tiered Approach – Tier I: Protect Existing Uses – Tier II: Maintain ‘high quality’ waters – Tier III: Protect ‘outstanding’ waters

15. What are High Quality Waters? “Existing high quality waters are waters with existing background quality unaffected by the discharge of waste and of better quality than that necessary to protect beneficial uses.” “Where the waters contain levels of water quality constituents or characteristics that are better than the established WQO, such waters are high quality waters.” “Waters can be of high quality for some constituents or beneficial uses, but not for others.” Source: Q’s and A’s Resolution No. 68-16

16. What is the Reference Point? “High quality water is the best water quality achieved since the adoption of the antidegradation policy by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1968.” -Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259

17. Groundwater Degradation Management ZoneChange in Nitrate-N (mg/L)Change in TDS (mg/L) Canyon-0.4186 Upper Pressure0.349 Hemet South1.3118 Lakeview/Hemet North1.6321 Lower Pressure0.8430 Perris North1.5212 Perris South3.4942 Menifee3.21,199 Source: San Jacinto Watershed Integrated Regional Dairy Management Plan. Table 2-7 Change in ambient concentration of nitrate-N and TDS between historical (1954-1973) and 2003 current (1984-2003) periods.

18. NPDES Program Review – Region 9 Anti-Degradation “Antidegradation implementation procedures (including procedures for determining waterbody tiers) for California need to be developed to ensure that antidegradation is properly and consistently addressed by the permit writers, and the antidegradation reviews need to be clearly documented in the fact sheets

19. Anti-Backsliding

20. “when a permit is renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards, or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit.” 40 C.F.R. 122.44(l)(1)

21. “Backsliding is prohibited in NPDES permits.... Allowing additional time to complete a task that was required by the previous permit constitutes a less stringent condition and violates the prohibition against anti-backsliding.”

22. R8-2007-0001 Compliance Schedule “Compliance with the Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications V.B. of this order shall be achieved by dischargers in the [SJR] Basin, in accordance with the following time schedule:” – “Fully implement the final Work Plan or cease the discharge of process wastewater and land application of manure within the [SJR] Basin.” – Compliance Date: September 6, 2012 R8-2007-0001 Sec. VII.C.4.a

23. NPDES Program Review – Region 9 Compliance Schedules: “All California Regional Boards whose permits were reviewed by HQ need to develop more consistent, quantifiable rationale/assessment for when to include a compliance schedule and more clear criteria for determining the length of the schedule and milestones.” “Rationale/assessment needs to be clearly documented in the fact sheets; justification for the compliance schedule should be provided before permit issuance.”

24. US EPA Compliance Schedule Opinion “Any compliance schedule contained in an NPDES permit must include an enforceable final effluent limitation and a date for its achievement that is within the timeframe allowed by the applicable state or federal law provision authorizing compliance schedules as required by CWA….” Memo – James A. Hanlon May 10, 2007

25. US EPA Compliance Schedule Opinion “Any compliance schedule contained in an NPDES permit must be an ‘enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with a [WQBEL]’ as required by the definition of ‘schedule of compliance’ in section 502(17) of the CWA.”

26. Compliance Schedules R8-2013-0001, Sec. III.F.1-4 – 18 Months - SJR Basin Dischargers must collect and submit to the Regional Board all groundwater monitoring data from wells within CAFOs as well as wells within 5 miles of CAFOs. Historic data shall also be collected to determine any statistically significant change in TDS and nitrate quality originating from area dairies. – 24 Months – If hotspot or impacts identified, dischargers must develop and submit to Regional Board additional control measures. Control measures must be implemented within 6 months of EO approval.

27. State Board Recommendations The State Board focused on four key areas in making recommendations: – Providing Safe Drinking Water – Monitoring, Assessment, and Notification – Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting – Protecting Groundwater

28. Providing Safe Drinking Water Regional Board Jurisdiction “The State Board and Regional Boards will use their authority under Porter-Cologne to order parties responsible for nitrate contamination to provide replacement water to impacted communities, as appropriate.”

29. Monitoring, Assessment, and Notification “Water Boards will define and identify nitrate high- risk areas in order to prioritize regulatory oversight and assistance efforts in these areas.”

30. Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting Dischargers in the SJR Basin must continue to track waste management through the Manure Manifest System developed either through the San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District or Form 4, provided in the Permit. See R8-2013-0001, Sec. III.F.1.c

31. Protecting Groundwater “The [Regional] Boards will evaluate all existing WDRs to determine whether existing regulatory permitting is sufficiently protective of groundwater quality at these sites. The [Regional] Boards will use the findings to improve permitting activities related to nitrate.”

32. Enforcement

33. Permit Enforcement “There is a point, however, at which [the] cooperative approach should make way for a more forceful approach.” “Without a strong enforcement program to back up the cooperative approach, the entire regulatory framework would be in jeopardy.” - SWQCB Water Quality Enforcement Policy

34. Questions? North Fork San Jacinto River, north of Idyllwild to Pine Cone