After working on this Order/WDR for over 20 years – with stops and starts – we finally have approval of an order.
Not to rain on the parade (we did the parade, NO KINGS, yesterday – right?) – a woke up the next morning after the approval realizing that the Order/WDR will likely be appealed at the State Board. This means more work and trips to Sacramento.
The vineyard folk have been masters at delaying and making the WDR less effective. Every delay is a win for them.
Again – we need to make the following points (when we are before the State Board):
* WDRs are adopted as permits and Water Quality Control Plans are a device that is an in-lieu Implementing Program to satisfy necessary remedial actions that would be required by a TMDL (where in some cases a TMDL has not been completed).
* As a Water Quality Control Plan, the WDR must comply with Cal Water Code Section 13242 – i.e. 1) Describe all actions necessary to attain Water quality Standards (Water Quality Standards are the sum of Water Quality Objectives and Beneficial Uses – noted in the Basin Plan), 2) Have a implementing program for such necessary actions – with timelines for implementation, 3) Have a monitoring program in place with adaptive management.
* Additionally the WDR must meet State Non-Point Source Policy (with pretty much is in sync with Cal Water Code Section 13242)
* The Region ! WDR for vineyards does not actually meet the above requirement – But, we are willing to accept it – as it is a step in the right direction for controlling pollution from vineyards (in compliance with Cal Water Code and NPS Policy)
* If you look at the mapping of the concentration of vineyards in Region 1 – you can see that concentration of vineyards is correlated with impaired conditions on the impaired listed waterbodies – specifically Russian River and Navarro River (with some on the Gualala River)
* All the major facets of agriculture (Dairy, Grazing, CAFO, and timber harvest) are regulated by WDRs and the Cities and Counties are subject to Stormwater and Wastewater NPDES. Under what logic should vineyards not be subject to pollution control?
* This WDR is very late in the effort to control pollution from these operations. The one year extension for implementation should be removed. The Federal Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne have the basic mandate “Thou shall not Pollute”. That goes for all parties.
* You might also make the case that almost all the rivers in Region 1 are listed as impaired (the pollutants sediment and temperature from Ag operations noted). This impaired status has not changed over the 40 year tenure of this listing (except for the Garcia River and Ten Mile River — due to special treatment). The Board (both State and Regional) needs to do better in recovering these waterbodies.
Keep these arguments for use before the State Board. They are effective.
Alan