|
On November 9, 2026, the Sacramento County Superior Court issued rulings in San Jerardo Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (“San Jerardo Case”) and Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board (“Grower-Shipper Case”). These cases were coordinated and related petitions for writs of mandate challenging State Water Resources Control Board Order (“State Board”) WQ 2023-0081 (“2023 State Board Order”), which was a review of waste discharge requirements issued to irrigated agriculture by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Central Coast Water Board”), otherwise known as “Ag Order 4.0.” In the Grower-Shipper Case, ag industry representatives represented by Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP (“KSC”) argued that Ag Order 4.0 did not make sufficient “economic considerations” as required by the statute and that the State Board erred by not requiring further considerations in its remand. The San Jerardo Case, brought by various nonprofit and environmental justice interests, challenged various components of the 2023 State Board Order, including the State Board’s removal of enforceable nitrate limits imposed on Central Coast farming operations, asserting the State Board was required to make “issuance findings” when reviewing and remanding waste discharge requirements to a regional board. Ag industry representatives, also represented by KSC, intervened in the San Jerardo case defending the State Board’s removal of enforceable limits for nitrate applications in Ag Order 4.0.
Most importantly, ag interests and the State Board prevailed in the San Jerardo case with respect to the removal of enforceable nitrate application and discharge limits from Ag Order 4.0. Petitioners argued the State Board’s removal triggered the need to make issuance findings – i.e., findings which are required when a regional water board or the State Board issues or reissues waste discharge requirements – and that they violated and/or illegally amended the Nonpoint Source Policy and the Anti-Degradation Policy.
However, the court rejected Petitioners claims and held that the State Board’s removal of enforceable nitrogen application limits was consistent with similar waste discharge requirements issued in the Central Valley Region, which had themselves been upheld in a published appellate opinion. (Envtl. Law Found. v. St. Water Resources Control Bd. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 451.) Since that appellate court had held the regulatory approach did not violate water quality policies, the court in this case determined that the State Board’s action to bring Ag Order 4.0 into alignment with that approach likewise did not violate either water quality policy.
In the Grower-Shipper Case, the court denied the petition, holding that the Central Coast Water Board’s economic considerations were sufficient under state law. The court concluded state law does not require analysis of the broader economic impacts on agricultural businesses, related industries and the regional economy resulting from increased compliance costs as argued by petitioners. The court determined that the Central Coast Water Board’s analysis of compliance costs and other considerations were supported by the evidence in the record, and the State Board did not abuse its discretion by approving this analysis in the 2023 State Board Order.
While the ag organizations did not prevail on the economic considerations issue, the court’s findings with respect to the State Board’s removal of enforceable nitrate application and discharge limitations was significant and a win for irrigated agriculture in the Central Coast. If you have any questions regarding the decisions, please contact Tess Dunham at tdunham@ksclawyers.com.
| 
