California has a Drinking Water Crisis and Agriculture is
Working to Help Solve It
Over one million Californians are exposed to unsafe
drinking water every year. Roughly 300 communities
are out of compliance with federal drinking water
standards and are unable to consistently provide safe
drinking water, according to the State Water Resources
Control Board (the Board). Many communities simply
cannot afford the cost of water treatment, particularly
those areas with small systems and lower income
ratepayer bases.
To further complicate matters, the Board is using
existing law to threaten farmers with enforcement
actions due to the use or management of nitrates
leading to the contamination of drinking water in some
areas. Discussions with the Board are very serious and
threaten farmers’ livelihoods in various areas of the state.
The dire situation led to the creation of a coalition
of unlikely partners comprising a small group of
environmental justice advocates and agricultural leaders,
including Ag Council, who worked to develop a solution
to address these difficult water issues. After months
of negotiations, the outcome is an historic agreement
establishing a drinking water fund for communities
desperately in need of safe drinking water along with
a path for farmers to achieve regulatory compliance
with the Board, while in the short-term protecting farmers
from certain nitrate-related enforcement actions.
The solution does come with a cost. Under the proposal,
in order to assist with the cost of water systems with
nitrate problems, agriculture would contribute to the
drinking water fund through a minimal fee of less than
$0.01 per dollar spent on fertilizers and a separate
assessment on dairy production. In turn, farmers
receive liability protection from specific Board
enforcement actions for a period of time. Since the
problem is statewide, and includes a lengthy list of other
contaminants unrelated to agriculture, a modest fee of
less than $1 per month would be included on residential
households to contribute to the fund. Due to the fees,
the legislative solution requires a two-thirds vote of
the Legislature.
Negotiations were contentious and it was particularly
tough negotiating with others who often oppose
agriculture on many issues inside the State Capitol.
However, despite the challenges, we were able to
create a solution that seems to work for those at the
negotiating table.
The solution does have opposition. Water districts
oppose the concept of a water tax. However, after
considering several alternatives, our coalition landed
on this one as the best option. We even entertained
a solution similar to the water districts’ suggestion of
utilizing general fund dollars. Unfortunately, none of
the other options generate enough funds to address
the magnitude of drinking water issues confronting
California, or the options were unrealistic for the
political realities in Sacramento.
Even with extremely different views on policy matters
within the Capitol, both the agricultural community and
environmental justice groups agree our current proposal
is the most comprehensive of the alternatives and has the
best chance of passing the Legislature.
The bill developed by the coalition, SB 623 (Monning),
did not move forward prior to the Legislature’s 2017
adjournment due to a crowded legislative calendar
and other obstacles. Election year dynamics in 2018
present new challenges, but these are surmountable,
and Ag Council remains committed to moving this
solution forward.
At this time, we are maximizing the legislative recess to
focus on our strategic goals. Drinking water is not just
a problem in the San Joaquin Valley – each and every
ADVOCACY REPORT
3 8
A L M O N D F A C T S
