ILRP: Plan to limit N fertilizers draws opposing sides to Irrigated Lands expert panel meeting – Maven’s Notebook

Report on the California Agricultural Expert Panel Meeting on Nitrogen Regulation and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Regulatory Context

A meeting of the Second Statewide Agricultural Expert Panel for the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) was convened on August 8, 2025, to address the regulation of agriculturally-sourced nitrogen pollution in California’s surface and groundwater. This initiative represents a critical step in aligning the state’s agricultural practices with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The panel’s formation follows a State Water Board decision to remand portions of a 2021 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board order that had established numeric limits for nitrogen application. The current panel is tasked with reviewing data and providing updated recommendations, reflecting an ongoing effort to build strong and effective institutions (SDG 16) for environmental governance.

Divergent Perspectives on Regulation and Sustainability

The meeting highlighted a significant conflict between agricultural production goals and environmental and public health protection, framing a debate over how to balance competing SDGs.

Agricultural Stakeholder Position: Prioritizing Economic Viability and Food Security

Representatives for agricultural interests argued that implementing numerical limits on nitrogen is premature and economically detrimental. Their position emphasizes the potential negative impacts on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• They contended that insufficient data has been collected to assess the program’s effectiveness and that more time is needed to establish realistic discharge targets.
• An economic analysis was presented, projecting annual losses of $119 million to $683 million in lettuce production and the loss of 2,000 to 11,340 jobs under proposed discharge limits.
• It was argued that such limits would threaten the viability of multi-cropping cycles and the broader agricultural economy in regions like the Salinas Valley, impacting food production capacity.

Environmental and Community Health Advocate Position: Upholding the Human Right to Water

In contrast, panelists from environmental justice and community organizations advocated for immediate and stringent limits on nitrogen fertilizer. Their arguments centered on the severe, ongoing impacts of nitrate contamination, directly invoking SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• They asserted that the state has a “history of inaction,” delaying necessary regulations while communities suffer devastating health and economic consequences.
• Data was presented on the rising incidence of nitrate contamination in Central Valley well water, linking it to severe health impacts including methemoglobinemia (“blue baby syndrome”) and various cancers.
• The economic burden on impacted communities was highlighted, including the cost of purchasing bottled water and drilling new wells, which exacerbates existing inequalities (SDG 10).
• The failure to impose sanctions on farms over-applying nitrogen was cited as evidence that non-regulatory approaches have not resolved the pollution, which undermines California’s declaration of the Human Right to Water.

Official Testimony and Public Comment

Statements from regulatory officials and the public reinforced the urgency of addressing water contamination in line with SDG 6. Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Board, affirmed the board’s primary duty to protect the beneficial use of groundwater for municipal supply. During the public comment period, numerous residents, many speaking in Spanish, provided testimony on the direct health consequences of nitrate-contaminated water on their families, including cancer and hydrocephalus. Their appeals called for the panel to establish firm limits on nitrate discharges to protect public health (SDG 3).

Panel Administration and Future Proceedings

The expert panel completed administrative tasks, including electing Dr. Daniel Geisseler as chair. The proceedings demonstrate a commitment to a structured institutional process (SDG 16) for resolving this complex environmental challenge. The panel is composed of University of California-based scientists and Cooperative Extension specialists.

Expert Panelists

• Ngodoo Atume, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
• Dr. Michael Cahn, University of California Cooperative Extension Monterey County
• Dr. Ruth Dalquist-Willard, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
• Dr. Daniel Geisseler, University of California Davis
• Dr. Thomas Harter, University of California Davis
• Dr. Ali Montazar, University of California Cooperative Extension Imperial County
• Richard Smith, University of California Cooperative Extension Monterey County – Emeritus
• Dr. Hannah Waterhouse, University of California Santa Cruz

Scheduled Future Meetings

1. Day 2 of Kick Off Meeting: August 14, 2025
2. Public Listening Session: October 1, 2025
3. Formal Meeting: October 31, 2025
4. Public Listening Session: November 2025 (Date TBD)
5. Formal Meeting: January 14, 2026

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The core issue of the article is the regulation of nitrogen pollution from agriculture into surface and groundwater in California. This directly addresses the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, particularly concerning water quality.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article explicitly mentions the “devastating health and economic impacts on impacted communities” due to nitrate contamination. It cites specific health problems like “blue baby syndrome and an array of cancers,” as well as testimony from residents about cancer, hydrocephalus, and skin conditions, linking water quality directly to human health.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The debate involves agricultural practices and their sustainability. The proposed regulations on nitrogen fertilizer could impact food production. The article notes arguments that discharge limits could cause “$119 million-$683 million in lettuce production losses annually” and threaten the viability of agriculture in regions like the Salinas Valley, connecting the issue to sustainable food production systems.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The economic consequences of the proposed regulations are a key point of contention. The article highlights an economic analysis predicting that “2,000-11,340 jobs lost” under different discharge limit scenarios, linking the environmental regulations to local employment and economic stability in the agricultural sector.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The discussion centers on the management of agricultural inputs, specifically nitrogen fertilizers. The problem of “over-applying N” and the need to control discharges relate to achieving environmentally sound management of chemicals to minimize their release into water and soil, which is a key aspect of sustainable production patterns.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The entire article describes a governmental and institutional process. It details the role of the California State Water Resources Control Board, the creation of an “Expert Panel,” the development of a “regulatory framework,” and public hearings. This highlights the effort to build effective, accountable, and transparent institutions to manage environmental and social conflicts.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

   This target is relevant because the article highlights that nitrate contamination forces residents in affected communities to “purchase bottled water and continually drill new drinking water wells,” indicating a lack of access to safe and affordable drinking water from their primary sources. The mention of California’s “Human Right to Water” further reinforces this connection.

2. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…

   This is the most direct target. The article’s central theme is the effort by the State Water Board to regulate “surface and groundwater pollution by agriculturally-sourced nitrogen.” The goal is to “protect groundwater quality” by establishing “limits on N fertilizer application rates and discharges.”

3. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

   The article directly links nitrogen pollution to adverse health outcomes. It mentions “negative health impacts of this contamination including blue baby syndrome and an array of cancers” and testimony from residents who have experienced “cancer, hydrocephalus, and skin conditions” due to contaminated water.

4. Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… that progressively improve land and soil quality.

   The debate is about finding a balance between agricultural productivity and environmental protection. The discussion around “numeric limits for applied nitrogen (N)” and managing the “difference between applied N and removed N” is an attempt to define and enforce more sustainable agricultural practices that prevent soil and water degradation.

5. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil…

   This target is directly addressed through the focus on regulating nitrogen fertilizer, a chemical input. The article discusses the problem of farms “over-applying N” and the need for a regulatory program to control “pollutant discharges from irrigated agriculture,” which is a call for the environmentally sound management of these chemicals.

6. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article describes the function of the State Water Board and the convening of the “Second Statewide Agricultural Expert Panel” as a mechanism to review data, hear from stakeholders (including industry, environmental justice groups, and the public), and develop recommendations for a “comprehensive regulatory program.” This process is an example of an institution attempting to operate transparently and effectively.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Concentration of nitrates in water.

  The article explicitly mentions that in 1964, “nitrates above safe levels were measured in Delano’s groundwater” and refers to the “rising incidence of nitrate contamination of well water.” This concentration level is a direct indicator for Target 6.3 (water quality).

• Amount of nitrogen applied versus removed by crops (A-R).

  The Central Coast agricultural order included “numeric limits for applied nitrogen (N) and for the difference between applied N and removed N: A-R.” This A-R value is a specific, measurable indicator of nitrogen use efficiency and potential discharge, relevant to Targets 2.4 and 12.4.

• Incidence of water-related illnesses.

  The article points to “negative health impacts… including blue baby syndrome and an array of cancers” and public testimony on “cancer, hydrocephalus, and skin conditions.” Tracking the incidence of these specific illnesses in communities with contaminated water serves as a direct indicator for Target 3.9.

• Economic losses and jobs in the agricultural sector.

  The economic analysis presented in the article provides clear indicators: “$119 million-$683 million in lettuce production losses annually” and “2,000-11,340 jobs lost.” These figures can be used to measure the economic impacts of regulations, relevant to SDG 8.

• Cost of obtaining safe drinking water.

  The article implies an economic indicator for Target 6.1 by stating that impacted communities “must purchase bottled water and continually drill new drinking water wells.” The household expenditure on these alternative water sources is a measurable indicator of the lack of access to affordable, safe water.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mavensnotebook.com