Vineyard managers in California’s venerated Wine Country unsuccessfully pleaded with state officials two years ago to let the industry continue to lead sustainability efforts rather than deal with a top-down water quality regulation. Now, winegrape growers are again making that case to a regional water board as it readies an order specific to vineyards along the Navarro and Russian River watersheds.
Growers fear the draft regulation would sweep up the smallest of vineyards, unfairly single out one type of land use, and impose excessive compliance costs for the complex monitoring and reporting requirements.
Under the proposal, growers would track any traces of nitrates and pesticides in water discharged into creeks, streams and drinking water wells. They would monitor turbidity in creeks from sediment runoff and report on the amount of nitrogen fertilizer they apply while also calculating how much the vines have absorbed.
Gathering such detailed metrics falls beyond the expertise and packed workdays of many growers, and regulations like this have given rise to a cottage industry of third-party consultants who have stepped in for growers throughout California’s most productive farmlands.
The order encompasses about 65,000 acres of vineyards in two counties. About 70% of the operations in Sonoma County and slightly more than half those in Mendocino County span less than 15 acres, according to USDA's latest Ag Census.
Neighboring Napa County vineyards, meanwhile, fall under the authority of a separate regional water board that does not prescribe specific monitoring requirements. Like Central Coast growers, who are grappling with a complex regulation known as Ag Order 4.0, North Coast vineyards subject to the proposed regulation would set aside up to 50 feet of their land along creeks to allow for vegetation that may filter runoff and to preserve habitat for sensitive riparian species.
Glenn McGourty, Mendocino County supervisorBoth the draft regulation and Ag Order 4.0 are derived from a landmark regional order for the Central Valley, the East San Joaquin Order, which the State Water Resources Control Board approved in 2018. It was the nation’s first to require growers to report on nitrogen use to protect water quality. The state-level authorization, however, meant each of the nine regional boards must update their regulations on irrigated agricultural lands to match the new requirements.
Yet growers now are pleading with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board to amend its proposed regulation so the impacts they face are equal to those in other regions.
“This draft order, as I see it, is an overreach of your staff,” said Frost Pauli, a winegrape grower in Ukiah, during a recent workshop on the draft order. “It treats farmers like me as if I'm a criminal and a polluter. It's offensive, disparaging and frustratingly complex when it doesn't need to be.”
Vineyards, he added, account for less than 1% of the overall land mass for the region and use little water and nitrogen compared to row crops.
Don't miss a beat sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! The latest on what’s happening in Washington, D.C. and around the country in agriculture, just click here.
The regulation would “do nothing to protect the environment or prevent pollution of waterways,” Pauli said. Along with the monitoring requirements and setback rules, he took issue with a proposed winterization period, when growers would have to close roads that run parallel to streams. He argued that for nearly half the year, he would be barred from critical practices like vine pruning, replanting vineyards and controlling fungus and weeds.
Pauli said he already strives to manage his properties in a way that restores fish and wildlife habitat and improves water quality, and, as a result, his operations have gained a sustainability certification for fish-friendly farming under the California Land Stewardship Institute, a Napa County-based nonprofit. Most vineyards in the two counties carry such third-party sustainability certifications, which mandate specific farming practices, verify claims through annual audits and prohibit the use of some of the pesticides the board is targeting in its order. More than 80% of the Mendocino vineyards have garnered the fish-friendly certification.
Adding to that sentiment was Glenn McGourty, a Mendocino County supervisor who represents a district rich with vineyards and chairs a local groundwater sustainability agency.
“There are so many people in this room and in this region who are committed to being the most environmentally sound farmers on the planet,” said McGourty. “They can help your staff come up with reasonable rules.”
Several agricultural advocates urged the board to delay the order until the staff completes ongoing studies to identify the sources of sediment discharge into the two watersheds, a program known as the Total Maximum Daily Load. Without that information, the agency would not be able to tie the sediment back to vineyards, according to Noelle Cremers, who directs regulatory affairs at the Wine Institute. She pointed to a map of Anderson Valley that detailed a series of rural roads that run through residential properties and likely contribute to the sediment load.
She also noted the significant costs for permitting and upgrading vineyard roads to comply with the new standards, which can rise to nearly $3,000 for a single permit.
Cremers and others urged the board to reject the draft regulation and pursue a tiered approach that would recognize sustainable certifications for compliance and classify other operations under separate tiers based on the individual risk to water quality. Hillside vineyards, for example, carry a higher risk for sediment runoff.
Central Coast growers seeking to comply with Ag Order 4.0 have struggled with submitting reports on time since the few laboratories qualified to analyze the monitoring samples cannot handle the entire region. Cremers hoped to take that issue into account for North Coast growers “so we don't set vineyards up for failure through no fault of their own.”
The board plans to adopt the regulation in December. But Michael Miiller, director of government relations for the California Association of Winegrape Growers, described that timeline as “very rushed” and said more conversations with stakeholders are needed for the board to be successful in reaching the goals of the order. Like many farmers and advocates at the workshop, Miiller called for a more simplified approach tailored to actual practices. That would mean dropping requirements for monitoring pesticides and nitrogen that are not in high use in grapes, for example.
“This board chair does not look at that December deadline as an absolute,” responded Hector Bedolla, who works as a vineyard consultant beyond serving as the regional board chair. “We want to get this thing right.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
