Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board; Protectores del Agua Subterranea v. State Water Resources Control Board; Monterey Coastkeeper et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board et al.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed judgments denying petitions for writs of mandate challenging State Water Resources Control Board Order WQ 2018-0002. The order regulates waste discharges from irrigated agricultural lands in the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed and establishes monitoring, reporting, and management-practice requirements. The court rejected claims that the order violated California’s Nonpoint Source Policy and Antidegradation Policy.

Holdings

1. The order's use of aggregated and anonymized management-practice implementation data and nitrogen data does not violate key element four of the Nonpoint Source Policy.
2. The order provides sufficient feedback mechanisms under key element four of the Nonpoint Source Policy.
3. The order's requirement that growers and the Coalition retain relevant records for ten years does not violate the Nonpoint Source Policy.
4. The overall regulatory program, consisting of the order and the planning and reporting activities required by it, adequately describes the management practices and other program elements expected to be implemented under key element two.
5. The State Water Board made the findings required by the Antidegradation Policy, and substantial evidence supported the finding that the order's authorized degradation was consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the order's use of aggregated and anonymized management-practice and nitrogen data violated key element four of the State Water Board's Nonpoint Source Policy.
2. Whether the order provided sufficient feedback mechanisms under key element four of the Nonpoint Source Policy.
3. Whether the order's ten-year recordkeeping requirement violated the Nonpoint Source Policy's commentary concerning permanent records.
4. Whether the overall regulatory program adequately described management practices and other program elements under key element two of the Nonpoint Source Policy.
5. Whether the evidence supported findings that the program was highly likely to attain water-quality requirements and that representative receiving-water monitoring was appropriate.
6. Whether the State Water Board complied with the Antidegradation Policy by making findings concerning maximum benefit to the people of the state, beneficial uses, and water-quality standards, and whether it improperly distinguished Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Disposition

affirmed