ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental

Studies

Mitigation of Fertilizer
Pollutants in California
Waterways
Kaylie Low, Environmental Studies Program, California State
University Monterey Bay

Introduction

Background
History

California, known as the cornucopia of agriculture, feeds the United States with the
large variety of crops it grows. California agriculture is an industry that produces more than 400
commodities and more than half of the fruit, nuts, and vegetables for the United States (State
Water Resources control Board 2016). The fields throughout the state use fertilizers and
pesticides to ensure crop success. While these chemicals aid in the growth of the crops, an
excessive amount can negatively affect water quality in the area. Water runoff and leaching from
watering and can be natural, but the pesticides and fertilizers in this run off can contribute high
level of nitrates and phosphates that result in contaminated waterways and groundwater.

The Salinas Valley, known as the Salad Bowl of the World, in Monterey County
produces: leaf and head lettuce, celery, broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, and spinach. The Salinas
Valley supplies 61% of leaf lettuce, 57% of celery, 48% of broccoli, and 38% of spinach (Farm
Bureau Monterey). With the amount of cops produced in the Salinas Valley, excess fertilizer
could have negative effects on neighboring waterways. These effects are concerning, and have
shown themselves here in the Monterey Bay. After the El Nino event of 1998, massive amounts
of run off triggered an eutrophication event which resulted in over 400 California sea lion deaths
(Anderson et al. 2008). Eutrophication is the process of advanced aging in a waterway due to
excessive amounts of nutrients like nitrates and phosphates found in fertilizer. The human health
implications are also a concern for the people of Salinas. Nitrates in California drinking water is
an issue that shows itself in the Salinas Valley. The question here is should there be more
effective mitigation methods to protect waterways from fertilizer run off? After assessing existing
successful management and regulation techniques and comparing Californias present techniques
the question could be answered. Researchers, scientists, and water quality experts will help
address the question as well.

Scientific Background

Water pollutants that can cause contamination are commonly found in agriculture run off
and ground water leaching are nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates are nutrients and help the
prosperity of the crops, but there is such thing as too much. Phosphorus occurs in dissolved
organic and inorganic forms or it attaches itself to sediment particles. The inorganic form of
phosphates are used for plant growth in fertilizers (Minnesota Control Agency 2008). When an
overload of nitrates or phosphates enters the waterways it feeds colonies of algae and they start to
grow at exponential rates. The wild growth of the algaes results in low dissolved oxygen, turbid
waters, expelled toxins, and eventually a dead zone (Minnesota Control Agency 2008). When the
dissolves oxygen is low in a body of water living organisms suffocate, then die and decompose
producing mass amounts of bacteria, leading to issues of dimoic acid contamination. Having high
turbidity in water can block the sunlight from entering in the body of water, therefore seizing
photosynthesis to plant life under the water and it can prevent visibility for fish and other aquatic
organisms.

Contaminated surface waters will eventually lead to the ocean causing more reason for
concern, considering that these contaminants can harm the heavily protected Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary and the apex of organisms that rely on these waters for safe habitat.
The effect we can expect in the watershed when amplified amounts of nitrates and phosphates are

2
found are algal blooms, eutrophication, fallout or erosion, and human health concerns (Kudela R.
2008).

Fertilizer pollutants have been known to cause human health effects as well. While the
California Department of Public Health has set a maximum contaminant level for nitrate in
drinking water at 45 miligrams per liter the EPA established their limit for fresh water streams
and drinking water to be at 10 mg/L. A study of nitrates in California drinking water done by UC
Davis looks at nitrate in groundwater in the Salinas Valley in the Central Coast of Monterey
County and Tulare Basin in the Central Valley. Between these two regions about 254,000 people
are currently at risk for nitrate contamination of their drinking water. 96% of total anthropogenic
nitrate sources come from cropland application of nitrogen during fertilizing practices (UC Davis
2012).

Methemoglobinemia, commonly known as blue baby syndrome, is an anemia thats

causes by the changing of hemoglobin to methemoglobin which cannot carry molecular oxygen.
This illness is linked to exposure to high levels of nitrate in drinking water and is mainly an issue
for pregnant women and infants less than six months of age which in cases can lead to death,
seizures, and miscarriages of pregnant women (Manassaram et al.2010).

Policy Context

The policy regulating agricultural run off pollution is existing but somewhat limited. The
urgency for more and strict regulation due to public concern for nitrate contamination is reflected
in recent policy action. The legislature enacted Chapter 1 of the Second Extraordinary Session
of 2008 (SBX2 1, Perata). This mandate required the State Water Board to develop projects
focusing on nitrate contamination in the Tulare Basin and the Salinas Valley. The mandate
required the focus to be on: providing safe drinking water, nitrogen tracking and reporting, and
protecting groundwater. It also required the State Water Board to submit a report with their
finding with 2 years of funding. The State Water Board chose a team from UC Davis in 2010 to

3
conduct a study to assess SBX2. The UC Davis Nitrate Report was published and reported to
the State Water Board in March 2012 (SWRB 1). The finding of this report are here as listed:

UC DAVIS KEY FINDINGS

1. Nitrate problems will likely worsen for decades. For more than half a century, nitrate
from fertilizer and animal waste have infiltrated into Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas
Valley aquifers. Most nitrate detected in drinking water wells today was originally
applied to the surface decades ago.

4
 UC DAVIS KEY FINDINGS

1. Nitrate problems will likely worsen for decades. For more

than half a century, nitrate from fertilizer and animal waste have

infiltrated into Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley aquifers. Most
2.
nitrate detected in drinking water wells today was originally

applied to the surface decades ago.

2. Agricultural fertilizers and animal wastes applied to

cropland are by far the largest regional sources of nitrate in

groundwater. Other sources can be locally important.

3. Nitrate loading reductions are possible, some at modest

cost. Large reductions of nitrate loads to groundwater can have

substantial economic cost.

4. Traditional pump and treat remediation to remove nitrate

from large groundwater basins is extremely costly and not

technically feasible. Instead, pump-and-fertilize and improved

groundwater recharge management are less costly long-term

alternatives.

5. Drinking water supply actions such as blending, treatment,

and alternative water supplies are most cost-effective. Blending

will become less available in many cases as nitrate pollution

continues to spread.

6. Many small communities cannot afford safe drinking water

treatment and supply actions. High fixed costs affect small

systems disproportionately.

7. The most promising revenue source is a fee on nitrogen

fertilizer use in these basins. A nitrogen fertilizer fee could

compensate affected small communities for mitigation expenses

and effects of nitrate pollution.

8. Inconsistency and inaccessibility of data prevent effective

5 and continuous assessment of Californias groundwater quality. A

statewide effort is needed to integrate diverse water-related data

 Agricultural fertilizers and animal wastes applied to cropland are by far the largest regional
sources of nitrate in groundwater. Other sources can be locally important.

3. Nitrate loading reductions are possible, some at modest cost. Large reductions of nitrate
loads to groundwater can have substantial economic cost.

4. Traditional pump and treat remediation to remove nitrate from large groundwater basins
is extremely costly and not technically feasible. Instead, pump-and-fertilize and
improved groundwater recharge management are less costly long-term alternatives.

5. Drinking water supply actions such as blending, treatment, and alternative water supplies
are most cost-effective. Blending will become less available in many cases as nitrate
pollution continues to spread.

6. Many small communities cannot afford safe drinking water treatment and supply actions.
High fixed costs affect small systems disproportionately.

7. The most promising revenue source is a fee on nitrogen fertilizer use in these basins. A
nitrogen fertilizer fee could compensate affected small communities for mitigation
expenses and effects of nitrate pollution.

8. Inconsistency and inaccessibility of data prevent effective and continuous assessment of

Californias groundwater quality. A statewide effort is needed to integrate diverse water-
related data collection activities by many state and local agencies

(Received from:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nitrate_project/index.shtml#clp)

After accessing the findings of the UC Davis report The State Water Board worked with
Interagency Task Force (ITF), which included representatives from the California Department of
Public Health (CDPH), the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), and local environmental health agencies to complete a set of 15 recommendations.

The Central Coast Water Quality Control Board issues The Agricultural Order (Ag order)
under the Irrigated Agricultural Program. The newest Ag Order, published March 8th, 2017,
requires groundwater monitoring and also expands the Total Nitrogen Applied reporting
requirement. The groundwater monitoring requires growers to sample the primary irrigation well

6
located on the field and all domestic wells located on the assessor parcel numbers where the
ranch is located (CCRWQB 2017)

The Clean Water Act intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nations waters but it fails to include agricultural pollutants. The Clean
water Act required the EPA to have pollution limiting regulations for the discharge of any
pollutant but defines the discharge of a pollutant as a point source which excludes agricultural
run off because it is considered a non-point source of pollution. The Act does not include
nonpoint sources in federal oversight.
Stakeholder Perspectives

Regarding agriculture runoff pollution control some stakeholders would be experts such
as; scientists, researchers, and the public. To create an understanding of what mitigation methods
are being researched and proposed to solve the fertilizer pollutant run off issue the stakeholders
presented are John Silveus and Fred Watson. They have both created projects and applied their
research in order to help create stronger mitigation methods for fertilizer and agricultural run off
pollutants. Disadvantaged communities facing nitrate contamination are also an important
stakeholder.

John Silveus is a professor who teaches Environmental Science, Environmental Biology,

and a special topics course on Water Quality Research. He is a UROC mentor who guides
students on research focusing on different environments of water quality and mitigation methods
solving water pollution issues. Water is considered a common pool resource. Common pool
resources are hard to create policy around, because it is hard to regulate, monitor, and control.
The only national policy in tack is the Clean Water Act. John explains the issue of agricultural
runoff pollutants The low hanging fruit have all taking care of has been really easy to fix point
source like a factory dumping into a riverbut when we look at agriculture run off we see a
nonpoint source pollution at massive scale and a conflict with the people who provide us food.

7
This issue is not only environmental, but as Silveus explained, it is ethical. Considering Growers
in this topic is vital to understanding the many layers to analyze policy around.

Common pool resources are challenging to regulate. Silveus explains the challenge of the
EPA trying to regulate agricultural run off this way: if the EPA sent a researcher to collect water
samples on a farm at 12pm on a Tuesday, it would only be an accurate indication of what was
leaving the farm at that time. It would not be an accurate sample for 3pm that day, or for any time
on Thursday. The amount of watering is variable depending on the days, time, and weather. This
inconsistency explains the difficulty with setting policies that require data monitoring because
its almost impossible to measure consistently. Expensive equipment like groundwater
monitoring systems would be effective for this issue, but considering Grower perspectives, this
would come at a cost.

Bioreactors are a filtering system that uses different media and strands of bacteria that eat
pesticide and fertilizer pollutants in water. Johns work on and off campus with bioreactors is in
efforts to try to establish a solution for this issue. The ultimate goal is to work with farmers to
treat the nonpoint source pollution like a point source by filtering at the farm. While in a natural
system, when the crops are irrigated the water filled with the fertilizer pollutants would run off
the field, into an ag ditch then flow into a body of water like a non point source of pollution.
With a bioreactor onsite the water that runs off the field during irrigation would be pumped nto a
bioreactor with some kind of drainage system, there for treating the water as a point source
pollution. Ocean Mist, a farm in Moss landing, has implemented a bioreactor system on their
farm. This project has broken the stigmas farmers hold against scientific research regarding
negative effects that result from farming practices. John says Any collaboration with research or
researchers is an admission of guilt on their part.

Fred Watson has worked on water quality projects during his time as a professor at
CSUMB. Dr. Watson has had a leadership role in creating and designing an experimental wetland
as a natural filter for agriculture runoff pollutants. Fred is also currently working on a 12 channel
Bioreactor on Ocean Mist farm in Castroville. He has dedicated most of his studies to mitigating
agricultural runoff and talks about the wetland as a possible solution for pollution control for

8
growers. The Molera Wetland has proven that the method works, and it could be used as a larger
scale filtration system. Fred explains that the benefits of a wetland include natural filtration
system and it creates a whole new ecosystem. An interesting discussion that Dr. Watson has
brought up is that although this method is healthier for the ecosystem the amount of time it takes
to filter the water is longer than a bioreactor.

Fred Watson and John Silveus are researchers who have dedicated their time to create
solutions for fertilizer pollutants, but the people that this is effecting have spoken out about the
issue. The Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN), a nonprofit news organization
that reports on food, agriculture and environmental health released an article titles Farming
communities face crisis over nitrate pollution, study says. The study the article is referring to is
the UC Davis report mentioned previously that used the city of Salinas and the Tulare Basin as
study focus for nitrates in groundwater. As the human health effects are serious when high nitrate
levels in drinking water are present, residents of these areas are concerned. Residents in rural
areas have a higher risk of nitrate contaminations since the drinking water source are shallower
private wells. San Jerardo, a farm-worker cooperative southeast of Salinas with a population of
250 resident have seen the effects first hand. Resident such as Sonia Lopez live in refurbished old
barracks. Sonia tells FERN that something went wrong 9 years ago, she started to get rashes and
her eyes burned and she lost some of her hair. Her family and other residents suffered these
effects as well. She says that she noted people dying of cancers, and she became anxious of who
would be next. The wells that the community got their water from tested 106 parts per million,
over double the accepted amount of 45 ppm. The community got a filtration system in 2006, and
now the residents have to pay up to 130$ a month for clean water. Sonia says she still worries
about her health and states that the nitrate problem will only get worse.

The article goes on to illuminate another perspective on the issue of clean water. Laurel
Firestone the co-executive director of Tulare Countys Community Water Center which is a
nonprofit that aids communities with unhealthy drinking water expands on the issue of nitrate
contamination. Laurel weighs in on the UC Davis study and says that it places the responsibility

9
on agricultures shoulders. This being said she believes that to address the issue, agriculture
needs to lead the way.

Discussion

To date, policy actions have been insufficient at regulating agriculture run off pollution.
Both stakeholders agree that the research being conduction into solutions for agricultural
pollutants are in preparation for the long anticipated regulations that should be coming in the
next few years. Taking into stakeholder perspectives, and after accessing the policies in place
some recommendations that would solve the regulation issues with agriculture run off would be;
a zero tolerance policy for any pollution above EPA limits, a mandatory filtration system such as
a bioreactor on sight, and setting a fertilizer cap on growers.

To enforce a zero tolerance policy, growers would need to install mandatory groundwater
wells and report back to the state. According to the Central Valley Water Control Board growers
feel like they should not have to comply with state wide water quality limits. As Silveus has
experienced resistance from growers to comply with researchers to find solutions to the issue
they also dont want to admit fault. The benefit to this would be healthier waterways and EPA
regulations would be strictly followed.

Filtration systems such as bioreactors and wetlands have already been in place here in
Monterey County. They are proven to denitrify the water and improve overall health of the water
after it filters through. The cost of the bioreactor is what concerns Growers. Also, dedicated the
space for the bioreactor or wetland is a sacrifice in itself. John mentions that growers use every
inch of the land to make as much profit as they can. This would involve local government
making this a mandated action. Fred Watson explained that Growers would be required through
the state to have a bioreactor on their land to filter the water on site. The Grower would have to
dedicate or sacrifice land and pay for the bioreactor itself.

Fertilizer taxes would increase the health of the waterway by reducing the nitrates and
phosphates in the water. With a tax, Growers would be able to purchase a set amount, but would

10
be taxed if they purchase any amount over the limit. This would discourage Growers from
purchasing excess amounts of fertilizer. The growers would argue that they would not risk only
limiting the fertilizer because they want to ensure crop success. John Silveus introduced me to an
analogy that has helped me understand why farmers chose to over fertilize their fields. He says if
your mother is sick and your car gets 20 miles per gallon and the hospital is 20 miles away. You
would not just put one gallon of gas in your car, you would put more gas in order to ensure you
will get to the hospital. A fertilizer tax would encourage growers to invest in researchers to help
them figure out the right amount of fertilizer for their crops in order to have successful crops.
The tax would discourage growers from buying excess fertilizer and therefore would decrease
the runoff pollutants.
Government Monetary cost Environment
Involvement for Growers Health
Zero Tolerance +++ o ++++
Filtration system ++ +++ +++
Fertilizer tax +++ + +++

Recommendation

To reduce the amount of fertilizer pollutants that run off into the waterway and cause
negative impacts on ecosystems and human health a zero tolerance policy for levels over EPA
limit, a mandatory onsite filtration system, and a fertilizer tax could all be policy solutions. The
zero tolerance policy would be extremely effective and environment health would benefit and
groundwater monitoring systems would report data to the state. The groundwater monitoring part
of the policy option as a part of the Ag Order issued in March 2017, is going to be extremely
expensive for growers. This policy while it could be effective would require a large amount of
government oversight and labor. Although the Ag order was already issued, it is a 3 year program
and we will not know the effectiveness or Grower willingness to comply until later on. The
fertilizer tax would be implemented on growers to pay in order incentivize them to reduce the
amount they purchase and apply. Considering Growers perspectives, this tax could lead to
negative attitudes and backlash costing Growers more money. This could potentially lead to

11
issues with crop success as well. Implementing a mandatory filtration system onsite such as a
bioreactor is my recommendation.

Although Growers will feel resistant in dedicating a space of their land to a bioreactor
filtration system, the effectiveness in environmental health has been proven. The bioreactor will
filter the water on site and pump the clean water to a waterway it would have ended up in a
natural system. This solution does not limit any Grower action as a zero tolerance policy or a
fertilizer tax would. With more Growers complying and adding bioreactors to their fields the
more effective the system will become ad researchers and engneers work together with Growers
needs.
Conclusion

Implementing a bioreactor onsite will reduce the amount of nitrates and

phosphates that run off into waterways and cause negative effects on aquatic

environments. This will also reduce the amount of nitrate contamination in groundwater

wells therefore protecting communities clean water rights. The human health effects seen

in the Salinas Valley due to nitate poisoning is a public health concern and it is the

responsibility of Growers and government to seize any further water contamination.

References Cited

References

Anderson, D., Burkholder, J., Cochlan, W., Glibert, P., Gobler, C., Heil, C., Kudela R., Parsons,
M., Rensel, J., Townsend, D., Trainer, V., Vargo G. (2008 December). Harmful algal blooms and
eutrophication: Examining linkages from selected coastal regions of the United States. Retrieved
from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568988308000978

State Water Resources Control Board. (1988, October) Nitrate in Drinking Water Report to
Legislature. Retrieved from: http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/files/138960.pdf

12
State Water Resources Control Board. (2013 February 20). Recommendations Addressing Nitrate
in Groundwater. Retrieved from:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nitrate_project/docs/nitrate_rpt.pdf

Farm Bureau Monterey. (2017). Monterey Agriculture: Facts, Figures & FAQs. From:
http://montereycfb.com/index.php?page=facts-figures-faqs

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2008, May). Nutrients: Phosphorus, Nitrogen Sources,
Impacts on Water Quality- A General Overview. Retrieved from:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw3-22.pdf

Natural Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. (2016, August 12). Harmful Algal Blooms. Retrieved
from: https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/habs/default

Kudela, R., Lane, J., Cochlan, W. (2008 August 1). The potential role of anthropogenically
derived nitrogen in the growth of harmful algae in California, USA. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156898830800108X

(SWRB)State Water Resources Control Board. (2016 April 7). Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/

California Ag Water Stewardship Initiative. (n.d). Nutrient Management. Retrieved from:

http://agwaterstewards.org/practices/nutrient_management/

Harter, T., J.R. Lund, J. Darby, G.E. Fogg, R. Howitt, K.K. Jessoe, G.S. Pettygrove, J.F. Quinn,
J.H. Viers, D.B. Boyle, H.E. Canada, N. DeLaMora, K.N. Dzurella, A. Fryjoff-Hung, A.D.
Hollander, K.L. Honeycutt, M.W. Jenkins, V.B. Jensen, A.M. King, G. Kourakos, D. Liptzin, E.
M. Lopez, M.M. Mayzelle, A. McNally, J. MedellinAzuara, T.S. Rosenstock. (2012). Addressing
Nitrate in California's Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley
Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature.
Manassaram DM, Backer LC1, Messing R, Fleming LE, Luke B, Monteilh CP. 2010. Nitrates in
drinking water and methemoglobin levels in pregnancy: a longitudinal study,

13
Holbrook S. 2012. Farming communities face crisis over nitrate pollution, study says. Retrieved
from: https://thefern.org/2012/03/farming-communities-facing-crisis-over-nitrate-pollution-
study-says/

14