1. Region-Wide Salt and Nitrate Management Planning Workshop
June 12, :00 to 4:00 PM
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Fresno Office

2. Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer Central Valley Water Board
Purpose and Agenda
Introduction Slides for Pamela

3. Purpose
Inform Board of salinity background and CV-SALTS Effort Plan and Status
Receive feedback and comments from Board on approach, workplan, schedule and milestones
Receive feedback and comments from Board on Archetypes/Prototypes and Management Practice Toolbox

4. Workshop Agenda Workplan, Strategy and Framework
Opening Statement and Introduction
Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer RWQCB
Background of Salinity and Nitrates in the Central Valley
Jeanne Chilcott, Senior Environmental Scientist RWQCB
CV-SALTS Overview and Organization
David Cory, President, CV Salinity Coalition
Workplan, Strategy and Framework
Daniel Cozad, CV-SALTS Program Manager
Current Implementation and Policy efforts
Parry Klassen, Executive Committee Chair
Addressing Difficult Questions/Charting a Path-Archetypes/Prototypes
Tim Moore, CV-SALTS Policy Facilitator
Public Comment
Summary and Closing
Jeff Willett, Executive Committee Vice-Chair
Feedback
Feedback
Feedback

5. Jeanne Chilcott, Sr. Env. Scientist Central Valley Water Board
Background of Salinity and Nitrates in Central Valley
Issues
Current Regulation
Options

6. Salt Issues More salt enters the region than leaves
Tulare Lake
Delta
Sacramento River
San Joaquin River
More salt enters the region than leaves
Sacramento Basin has relatively few salt impaired areas but salt exported to the Delta can be picked up and redistributed by SWP and CVP
San Joaquin River is the SJR Basin’s sole outlet. Salt imports exceed export capacity
Two of our basins, the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, both have a natural outlet to the ocean through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and San Francisco Bay.

7. Salt Issues More salt enters the region than leaves
Tulare Lake
Delta
Sacramento River
San Joaquin River
More salt enters the region than leaves
Sacramento Basin has relatively few salt impaired areas but salt exported to the Delta can be picked up and redistributed by SWP and CVP
San Joaquin River is the SJR Basin’s sole outlet. Salt imports exceed export capacity
Two of our basins, the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, both have a natural outlet to the ocean through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and San Francisco Bay.
Water development has changed the rate and routing of flow and salt from these basins, with the Bay-Delta now providing drinking water to two-thirds of the State’s population and water supply for agricultural areas both in the Delta and beyond.
5/2/2019

8. Salt Issues More salt enters the region than leaves
Tulare Lake
Delta
Sacramento River
San Joaquin River
More salt enters the region than leaves
Sacramento Basin has relatively few salt impaired areas but salt exported to the Delta can be picked up and redistributed by SWP and CVP
San Joaquin River is the SJR Basin’s sole outlet. Salt imports exceed export capacity
Tulare Lake Basin has no reliable outlet
In contrast, the third basin in the Central Valley, the Tulare Lake Basin, no longer has a natural outlet to the ocean and all the salt remains within the basin.
5/2/2019

9. (Delta, Tulare Lake, Westside SJR Basin)
Salt Issues
Salt build-up threatens agricultural productivity
(Delta, Tulare Lake, Westside SJR Basin)
Need for Agricultural Drainage Recognized Since Late 1800’s
CVP’s San Luis Unit Authorized in 1960
Not a new concept.
5/2/2019

10. Salt Issues
Increasing salt concentrations (including NO3) in groundwater threaten drinking water
Particularly areas with:
Irrigated agriculture
Dairies
Septic systems
5/2/2019

11. Salt Issues
Water used for dilution is (usually) water lost to other uses
5/2/2019

12. Diverse Sources Regional Water Use Exacerbated Locally Agricultural
Urban
Rural
Environmental
Industrial
Water Providers
Salinity increases in Central Valley surface water and groundwater can be attributed to many factors. Each of us contributes to the problem, and each of us is now or in the future will be impacted in some way by the problem of an increasingly saline water supply.
Exacerbated Locally
Municipal wastewater
Septic tanks
Oil field brines
Confined animal facilities
Food processors

13. Economic Costs
If the Region does not change it’s approach to salt, by 2030…
Direct annual costs anticipated to range between
$1 to 1.5 BILLION
Total annual income impacts statewide anticipated between $1.7 to 3 BILLION
There is presently no means of distributing
these costs equitably or assigning costs to
all responsible parties.
Based on UCD Economics Report, 2009.

14. Current Regulation Regulatory Basis: Basin Plans
Identify how we protect water quality
Regulatory document
Establish beneficial uses
Establish water quality objectives to protect BUs
Prescribes an implementation plan
Actions and timetables
Our regulatory authority comes from the Basin Plans
Our Region has two Basin Plans – one for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, and the other for the Tulare Lake Basin. There is also a Basin Plan for the Delta, but this is developed and implemented by the State Water Board.
Basin Plans are our guiding documents that control the permits we write and many of the actions we take. They can be considered the bible of the Regional Board.
The corner-stone of the Basin Plan are the designated beneficial uses of both surface and groundwater. The Board’s mandate is to protect those uses—whether for agricultural supply, drinking water, recreation, wildlife, or a host of other uses.
Water quality objectives are the numeric or narrative standards established in our Basin Plans for protecting the beneficial uses of our State’s waters. These are used to help establish effluent limits and receiving water limits for our permits.
The implementation component identifies the actions that will be taken to insure that the water quality objectives are met and the uses protected.

15. Current Regulation Regulatory Tools:
Setting limitations in WDR and NPDES permits
TMDLs
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are our primary tool for regulating salt
An important tool used to regulate is our permitting process. We issue two basic kinds of permits. The first is Waste Discharge Requirements or WDRs, for waste discharges made to land, such as to ponds or to crop land. The second is the NPDES permit, for waste discharges made to surface water bodies.
Many municipal wastewater treatment plants have NPDES permits. Discharges to groundwater and dairies are and soon agricultural discharges under the ILRP will be covered under WDRs.

16. Most sections of the current Basin Plans addressing salt are over
Current Regulation
WDRs MUST comply with Basin Plans
Most sections of the current
Basin Plans addressing salt are over
30-years old
Although based on the best science of the time, most of the sections of our basin plans that deal with salinity were developed in the 1970’s.
5/2/2019

17. Current Regulation Results:
Limited data available for staff to interpret water quality objectives and implement the Basin Plans
Over time, salt and nitrate has become a more prominent issue for Regional Board
Outcry from dischargers and others for doing too much or too little
When working under these limitations, it becomes difficult for staff to interpret how best to apply water quality objectives and implement in order to protect the designated beneficial uses.
Since the 70’s, salt and nitrate has become a more prominent issue in many sectors of our Region, and the current process of regulating discharger by discharger has resulted in both concerns that we are being too stringent in some cases as well as being too relaxed in others.
--In particular, the food processing and winery industries, and municipalities felt our regulation of salt was causing financial hardship while others saw their supplies being degraded. 

18. Current Regulation Examples:
POTWs protecting MUN use in ag drains (Colusa, Willows, Live Oak, Biggs)
Dischargers (including Ag) held to conservative salinity concentrations to protect AGR use
Prohibiting discharges of nitrate does not in itself translate to safe drinking water for those impacted by high concentrations

19. Current Regulation Need: Update Regulatory Basis
ie. Update Basin Plans
Since we regulate based on the existing Basin Plans, any potential changes related to salt control must be reflected within the Basin Plan to be enforceable.

20. Options Traditional Regional Board approach Stakeholder approach
Collaborative and integrated approach
No Action is also an alternative
If willing to accept economic cost
To move forward with amending a basin plan, there are essentially two approaches: 1) the traditional approach where Regional Board staff take the lead; and 2) the collaborative approach where all stakeholders involved in the issue jointly participate with staff in creating a solution.
Of course, there is the no action alternative if we are willing to accept the economic cost outlined earlier.

21. Stakeholder Based Solutions
Stakeholder involvement and ownership
Better addresses all needs and concerns
Utilize everyone’s efforts & resources more efficiently and effectively
Basin Plan - based on better data more effective
27 March 2012

22. David Cory, CVSC President
Overview of CV-SALTS
History and Organization

23. CV-SALTS Status and Progress
Slide 23
CV-SALTS is complicated
CV-SALTS is organized
CV-SALTS is important
CV-SALTS is working
CV-SALTS is undertaking a large complicated diverse area with a unique regulatory history and problems
CV-SALST is now well organized to undertake this effort and succeed with dedicated stakeholders, leadership and contractors
CV-SALTS mission is critical to the future of the Central Valley, economically, socially and environmentally
CV-SALTS is well underway and has agreement on the direction and decisions on critical issues that are allowing us to move forward

24. CV-SALTS History 2006: Joint Workshop 2009: MOA Initial Products
Economic study
Metadata report
Educational Video
Strategy
2009: MOA
State Water Board
Central Valley Water Board
Central Valley Salinity Coalition
Stakeholder JPA

25. CV-SALTS Mission Develop a comprehensive
regional salinity nitrate management plan
that is robust enough to support
basin plan amendments
Plans to be amended:
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Plan
Tulare Lake Basin Plan
Delta Plan
CV-SALTS initiated prior to the Recycled Water Policy and has compatible goals, therefore CV-SALTS became the vehicle to meet the requirements of the Policy.
27 March 2012

26. CV-SALTS Tackling Important Issues
Slide 26
Stakeholder issues
Water Board Issues
Changes to the Basin plan to assist the Regional Board
Mutual Decisions not Litigation

27. Recycled Water Policy Relationship
CV-SALTS was initiated before the State Water Board Recycled Water Policy
CV-SALTS was designed with the same basis
Stakeholder driven
Basin Salt and Nitrate Management
Some
Avenue for local agencies to produce SNMPs
Will comply Recycled Water Policy Requirements
Footer goes here if you want (can be turned off)
5/2/2019

28. CV-SALTS Organization
Slide 28
Leadership Team
(State/Federal Agencies and Stakeholders)
Central Valley
Salinity Coalition
(Stakeholders)
CV-SALTS Executive Committee
(Subset Leadership Team and CVSC)
Funding
Subcomm.
Technical
Committee
Education
Outreach
Lower
San Joaquin
BMP
Evaluation
Knowledge
Gained

29. CV SALTS LEADERSHIP GROUP CV SALTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Steering Committee
Executive Membership Representing Salt and Nitrate Stakeholders
CV Salinity Coalition
(CVSC)
Federal, State Agencies and NGOs
CV SALTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Initiative Leadership
Maximum of 30 members
CVSC
Chair + members
Up to 18 members
Up to 6 members
Committee Chairs
Committees
Members representing stakeholders (including State and Regional Board staff)
Public Education and Outreach
Economic and Social Cost
Technical
Public Policy
Funding
Regional
Regional Subcommittees:
Lower San Joaquin River
Others
Technical Subcommittees:
BMP Assessment/Evaluation
Communication Flow and Makeup

30. Stakeholders are Organized
Central Valley Salinity Coalition, (CVSC)
Stakeholder involvement and ownership
Better addresses all needs and concerns
Utilize everyone’s efforts & resources more efficiently and effectively
Funding for elements of CV-SALTS
Basin Plan - based on better data more effective
27 March 2012

31. Central Valley Salinity Coalition
Members
Tulare Lake Drainage District
County of San Joaquin
City of Stockton
Stockton East Water District
The Wine Institute
City of Tracy
California Rice Commission
City of Manteca
City of Modesto
San Joaquin River Group
City of Vacaville
City of Fresno
Dairy CARES/Western United Dairymen
California Association of Sanitation
California League of Food Processors
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority
Iron House Sanitary District
Discovery Bay Community Services
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
Pacific Water Quality Association
Los Angeles County San District
Western Plant Health Association
East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition

32. Central Valley Salinity Coalition
24 Member Benefit Non-Profit Coalition of Central Valley Water users
Contributed $1,007,000 to date Plus In-Kind
Representing
Water and wastewater
Agricultural producers and processors
Industry groups
Others
Developing and funding studies, planning and implementation efforts as match to other funding sources

33. Funding and Fundraising
CVSC Member Funding
State Water Board Cleanup and Abatement
Project Contributions
In-Kind Contributions

34. Footer goes here if you want (can be turned off)
5/2/2019

35. Stakeholder Expenditures HANDOUT
27 March 2012

36. Cleanup and Abatement Funding
Approximately $700,000 expended
Approximately $1.5 M Contracted
Approximately $1.2 M in awards over summer

37. Funding and Expenditures
27 March 2012

38. Financial Impacts of Salt & Nitrate
Central Valley pays for Salt
$544 million per year
Impacts to Industry and communities
Impacts to the local economies
California pays for Salt
If not for CV-SALTS work UC Davis estimates
$1.5B in annual impacts statewide
Loss of agricultural production
Loss of tax revenue and increased unemployment
We are contracting and spending a lot of money but, put it pales in comparison to the amount of economic cost.
More than 1.5 million tons of salt are deposited in the Central Valley each year at an estimated annual cost of $544 million to residents and industry, according to a 2009 study by U.C. Davis, “Economic Impacts of Central Valley Salinity.” If nothing is done to address the situation, the study forecasts direct costs associated with salinity tripling to $1.5 billion a year statewide by 2030.

39. Daniel Cozad, CV-SALTS Program Manager
Strategy/Framework and Approach
Workplan and Milestones

40. Strategy and Framework
Summary of Approach
Approved Workplan
Milestones
SNMP Draft Delivered by May 2014 to Regional Board
Basin Plan Amendment Completed in 2015

41. Strategy and Framework
Revise Regulatory Structure
Beneficial Uses; Water Quality Objectives; Policies
Revise Basin Plan
Develop Policies and Procedures to:
Evaluate Compliance
Provide Regulatory Flexibility
Provide basis for short and long-term management of salts and nitrate at appropriate geographic scales

42. Key Work Areas Regulatory Planning CV-SNMP Master Plan Development
Regulatory structure and policies to support basin-wide S/N management
CV-SNMP Master Plan Development
Creates framework for implementation
SNMP Implementation
Provides basis and process for future development of area-specific SNMPs
*A Plan Within a Plan*

43. Work Plan 3 Goals 7 Major Work Elements Regulatory Planning
SNMP Master Plan
SNMP Implementation
7 Major Work Elements
The State Recycled Water Policy requires the adoption of a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP)
for the Central Valley. To fulfill this requirement, CV-SALTS adopted a Strategy & Framework that (1)
establishes a strategy for fulfilling this state requirement, and (2) a framework from within which work
would be executed in the following three areas:
1. Regulatory Planning - Establishes the regulatory structure and policies within the Basin Plan to
support basin-wide salt/nutrient management;
2. CV-SNMP Master Plan Development – Creates the framework, technical studies, planning and
procedures for a basin-wide and regional approach to salt/nutrient management through the
adoption of a CV-SNMP and implementation of required elements including monitoring and
reporting;
3. SNMP Implementation – Provides basis and process for future development of regional or sitespecific
salt/nutrient management plans or future modification of beneficial uses (BUs) or water
quality objectives (WQOs) consistent with the adopted regulatory structure and policies.

45. Conceptual Model
Policy
Master Plan
Implementation

46. Workplan Supports Policy Decisions

47. Detailed Critical Path Schedule
Detailed Critical Path Scheduled prepared
Parallel Tasks
Early Critical Tasks
Policy Decisions
Conceptual Model Technical work
Implementation Planning

48. CRITICAL TASK

49. Selected Critical Milestones

50. Costs $$
How Much
Who/Where

51. CV-SALTS Workplan and Status
Well Planned
Work well underway
Produce a Draft SNMP by May 2014
2015 Final
Funding largely in place Stakeholder participating
Implementation will need funding

52. Regional Board Questions/Discussion/Feedback
Are we headed in the right direction?
Are any important issues missing?
Feedback
Additional Questions:

53. Parry Klassen, Exec. Comm. Chair
Current Implementation and Policy Efforts

54. Current Implementation
Early Implementation Commitment
Management Practice BMP Toolbox
Management Practices approval
Process for review and approval
Approved Management Practices

55. Management Practice Toolbox
Purpose
Process
Review of practices
Utility of toolbox
Footer goes here if you want (can be turned off)
5/2/2019

56. Practices Under Review
Collections of Practices
Wine Institute Manual of Practice for salt and nutrients
California League of Food Processors Manual of Practice for salt and nutrients
4-R Plant Nutrition On-Farm Nitrogen Management
Individual Practices
Dairy Feed Management Practice
Potassium for Sodium Hypochlorite substitution
5/2/2019

57. Practices Under Review
Nitrate Issues Status in CV-SALTS
Collaboration - Counties and communities - SOAC
Identification, development and implementation
Provide community support upon recommendation
BPA to support compliance offset
5/2/2019

58. Tim Moore, CV-SALTS Policy Facilitator
Addressing Difficult Questions
Charting a path
Archetypes and prototypes
Decisions to date
Decisions in progress

59. Policy Discussions
I. What's so hard about writing a Salt and Nitrate Management Plan?
A) Compare existing water quality to objectives
B) Develop implementation plan to achieve objectives
C) Conduct long‐term water quality monitoring
D) Do it in a "locally‐driven and controlled collaborative process"

60. Policy Discussions
II. Elements of the traditional water quality regulation model
A) Waterbodies
B) Uses
C) Objectives
D) Discharge limitations

61. Policy Discussions III. Groundwater is different
A) Difficult to describe: 3‐dimensional layers of water quality
B) Difficult to measure/model: uncertain fate and transport
C) Difficult to control: defuse non‐point sources and legacy effects

62. Policy Discussions IV. Outcome‐oriented decisions A) Assuring the use
B) Balancing competing uses; the zoning metaphor
C) Recognizing reality (historic loading to the vadoze zone)

63. Policy Discussions V. Nitrates in groundwater
A) Well‐defined water quality objective
B) Regulatory alternatives: discharge prohibitions, remediation requirements
C) Compliance options: offsets and alternative supply projects

64. Policy Discussions
VII. Archetypes and Prototypes: Test Cases for Collaboration
A) Ag Drains (Live Oak, Willows, Colusa, Biggs)
B) Tulare Lake basin
C) EDC project
D) WDR monitoring program for rice
E) Lower San Joaquin River

65. Policy Discussions Decisions in progress Policy Discussions
How topics relate to ongoing Water Board programs
Schedule of discussions
Offsets
MUN
Tulare Lake
Lower San Joaquin River
II. Elements of the traditional water quality regulation model
A) Waterbodies
B) Uses
C) Objectives
D) Discharge limitations
III. Groundwater is different
A) Difficult to describe: 3‐dimensional layers of water quality
B) Difficult to measure/model: uncertain fate and transport
C) Difficult to control: defuse non‐point sources and legacy effects
IV. Outcome‐oriented decisions
A) Assuring the use
B) Balancing competing uses; the zoning metaphor
C) Recognizing reality (historic loading to the vadoze zone)
V. Nitrates in groundwater
A) Well‐defined water quality objective
B) Regulatory alternatives: discharge prohibitions, remediation requirements
C) Compliance options: offsets and alternative supply projects
VI. Salinity in groundwater
A) Narrative objective and site‐specific translators
B) Economic impairment as a special case
C) Defining "reasonable protection"
VII. Archetypes and Prototypes: Test Cases for Collaboration
A) Ag Drains (Live Oak, Willows, Colusa, Biggs)
B) Tulare Lake basin
C) EDC project
D) WDR monitoring program for rice
E) LSJR
Dennis’s were
Prior steps and actions
Direction from State Board
South Delta work
Work to be done as part of CV-SALTS

66. Anticipated Outcome: Ability to fold in more area specific plans as needed
Utilize Master CV-SNMP as default management approach
Periodic updates to include area-specific SNMP in the future
Utilize process templates from master plan
Area-specific SNMPs
Archetypes
Prototypes
27 March 2012

67. Regional Board Questions/Discussion/Feedback
Do these areas address important issues for the Board?
Are any important issues missing?
Feedback

68. Public Comment Questions/Discussion/Feedback

69. Jeff Willett, Exec. Comm. Vice Chair
Summary and Closing

70. Summary and Closing Tim will Provide Revised slide!
On the road to a successful process
Significant progress
Significant work underway
How this comes together for a sustainable Central Valley future
Path to follow for dealing with difficult issues and making difficult choices successfully
Tradeoffs to gain best use of limited funds
Long term benefits for the Central Valley