Filed 6/24/20 Sweeney v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAMES G. SWEENEY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

F078190

(Super. Ct. Nos. 15CECG02063, 15CECG03426, 17CECG00146, 17CECG02994 & 17CECG03030)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Rosemary T. McGuire, Judge.

Griswold, LaSalle, Dowd, Cobb & Gin, Raymond L. Carlson, and Andrew J. Brownson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorney General, Randy L. Barrow, Bruce Reeves, and Sierra S. Arballo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq.) (Porter-Cologne Act) “seeks ‘to attain the highest water quality which is reasonable, considering all demands being made and to be made on [state] waters and the total values involved, beneficial and detrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible.’ ” (Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921, 932-933, quoting § 13000.) It “establishes a coordinated statewide program of water quality control overseen by the State Board and administered by nine regional boards.” (City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960, 964, citing §§ 13140, 13200 et seq.)

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, “[a] person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state” “shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board.” (§ 13260, subd. (a)(1).) “The regional board, after any necessary hearing, shall prescribe requirements as to the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge, . . . with relation to the conditions existing in the disposal area or receiving waters upon, or into which, the discharge is made or proposed.” (§ 13263, subd. (a).) “The state board or a regional board may prescribe general waste discharge requirements for a category of discharges if the state board or that regional board finds or determines that all of the following criteria apply to the discharges in that category: [¶] (1) The discharges are produced by the same or similar operations. [¶] (2) The discharges involve the same or similar types of waste. [¶] (3) The discharges require the same or similar treatment standards. [¶] (4) The discharges are more appropriately regulated under general discharge requirements than individual discharge requirements.” (§ 13263, subd. (i).)

“A regional board, in establishing or reviewing any . . . waste discharge requirements . . . may investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region.” (§ 13267, subd. (a).) “In conducting an investigation . . . , the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region, . . . shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the regional board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports. In requiring those reports, the regional board shall provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.” (§ 13267, subd. (b)(1).) “As used in this section, ‘evidence’ means any relevant evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of the evidence over objection in a civil action.” (§ 13267, subd. (e).)

Respondent Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), one of nine regional boards established by the Porter-Cologne Act, is responsible for the coordination and control of water quality within its jurisdiction. In 2007, it adopted a general order prescribing waste discharge requirements for qualifying milk cow dairies. Owners and operators of these facilities must submit annual reports. In 2013, the Regional Board adopted a revised general order that preserved the annual reporting requirement.

Appellants James and Amelia Sweeney own and operate a dairy in Tulare County and were served with the 2007 and 2013 orders. However, they did not submit annual reports for the years 2009 through 2015. The Regional Board imposed civil penalties for noncompliance.

After exhausting their administrative remedies, the Sweeneys filed multiple writ petitions in the Fresno County Superior Court, which were later consolidated. In the trial court, the Sweeneys asserted, in part: (1) the “plain language” of section 13267, subdivision (b)(1) called for the Regional Board to provide them with an “individual” rather than a “general” explanation justifying the need for annual reporting; (2) the Regional Board failed to do so; and (3) as a result, they “cannot be made subject to administrative civil liability for . . . failure to prepare and submit any technical reports” until the Regional Board “discharge[s] the affirmative mandatory statutory duty stated in section 13267[, subdivision ](b)(1).” The trial court rejected these contentions and denied the petitions for writ of mandate and injunctive relief. The Sweeneys appealed from that judgment.

On appeal, the Sweeneys maintain the language of section 13267, subdivision (b)(1), and the legislative intent and history of it, requires the Regional Board to provide to them an individualized written explanation supported by identifiable evidence of the need for an annual report before they must produce such a report. We disagree. The plain language of the Porter-Cologne Act was satisfied by the 2007 and 2013 orders. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 3, 2007, the Regional Board adopted Order No. R5-2007-0035 “WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ORDER [¶] FOR [¶] EXISTING MILK COW DAIRIES” (2007 Order), which “applie[d] to owners and operators of existing milk cow dairies . . . that: (1) submitted a complete Report of Waste Discharge in response to the [Regional] Board’s 8 August 2005 request for such a report . . . and (2) have not been expanded since October 17, 2005.” It read in part:

“REASON FOR THE [REGIONAL] BOARD ISSUING THIS ORDER [¶] . . . [¶]

“12. There are approximately 1,600 milk cow dairies within the Central Valley Region . . . that will be required to operate under the requirements of [the 2007] Order. Each facility represents a significant source of waste discharge with a potential to affect the quality of the waters of the State.

“13. For the purposes of [the 2007] Order, ‘waste’ includes, but is not limited to, manure, leachate, process wastewater and any water, precipitation or rainfall runoff that contacts raw materials, products, or byproducts such as manure, compost piles, feed, silage, milk, or bedding. [¶] . . . [¶]

“15. . . . . [¶] [The 2007] Order will result in implementation of best practicable treatment or control as set forth in the Information Sheet.

“[The 2007] Order will assure that pollution or nuisance will not occur and that the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“DAIRY IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY

“23. Groundwater monitoring shows that many dairies in the Region have impacted groundwater quality. A study of five dairies in a high-risk groundwater area in the Region found that groundwater beneath dairies that were thought to have good waste management and land application practices had elevated levels of salts and nitrates beneath the production and land application areas. The [Regional] Board requested monitoring at 80 dairies with poor waste management practices in the Tulare Lake Basin. This monitoring has also shown groundwater pollution under many of the dairies, including where groundwater is as deep as 120 feet and in areas underlain by fine-grained sediments.

“24. No set of waste management practices has been demonstrated to be protective of groundwater quality in all circumstances. Since groundwater monitoring is the most direct way to determine if management practices at a dairy are protective of groundwater, Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R5-2007-0035, which is attached to and made part of [the 2007] Order, requires groundwater monitoring to determine if a dairy is in compliance with the groundwater limitations of [the 2007] Order . . . .

“25. The [Regional] Board has documented many discharges of waste from existing milk cow dairies to surface water and has taken appropriate enforcement actions in such cases. [The 2007] Order prohibits discharges of: waste and/or storm water to surface water from the production area; wastewater to surface waters from cropland; and storm water to surface water from a land application area where manure or process wastewater has been applied . . . . When such discharges do occur, [the 2007] Order requires the Discharger to monitor these discharges.

“26. The milk cow dairies at which [the 2007] Order is directed were in existence prior to October 2005 and many were constructed several decades ago. The waste management systems at these existing dairies are commonly not capable of preventing adverse impacts on waters of the state either because of their outdated design or need for maintenance or both. Historic operation of these dairies has presumptively resulted in an adverse effect on the quality of waters of the state. Groundwater data are needed to determine the existence and magnitude of these impacts. If data document impacts, continued operation of dairies without waste management improvements will perpetuate the ongoing adverse water quality effects caused by the generation and disposal of dairy waste.

“27. . . . [The 2007] Order imposes new and more stringent requirements than these existing facilities have had applied to them in the past. Many Dischargers will need to make significant improvements in their facilities to meet these requirements. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“GENERAL FINDINGS [¶] . . . [¶]

“E. PROVISIONS [¶] . . . [¶]

“3. The Discharger shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R5-2007-0035 which is part of [the 2007] Order, and future revisions thereto . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“10. Any instance of noncompliance with [the 2007] Order constitutes a violation of the . . . Water Code and its regulations. Such noncompliance is grounds for enforcement action . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“13. The Discharger must comply with all conditions of [the 2007] Order, including timely submittal of technical and monitoring reports as directed by the [Regional] Board . . . . Violations may result in enforcement action, including [Regional] Board or court orders requiring corrective action for imposing civil monetary liability . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“H. REQUIRED REPORTS AND NOTICES [¶] . . . [¶]

“2. Reporting Provisions: [¶] . . . [¶]

“b. The Discharger shall submit all reports as specified in the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R5-2007-0035.” (Fns. omitted.)

An attached “MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. R5-2007-0035” specified various “Monitoring, Record-Keeping, and Reporting requirements.” It read in part:

“C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS [¶] . . . [¶]

“Annual Reporting

“An annual monitoring report is due by 1 July of each year beginning 1 July 2008.[ ] It will consist of a General Section, Groundwater Reporting Section and a Storm Water Reporting Section . . . .

“General Section

“The General section of the annual report . . . shall include all the information as specified below. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“1. Identification of the beginning and end dates of the annual reporting period; [¶] . . . [¶]

“3. Number and type of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof;

“4. Estimated amount of total manure (tons) and process wastewater (gallons or acre-inches) generated by the facility during the annual reporting period and a calculation of the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and total salt content of this waste;

“5. Estimated amount of total manure (tons) and process wastewater (gallons or acre-inches) applied to each land application area during the annual reporting period and a calculation of the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and total salt content of this waste;

“6. Estimated amount of total manure (tons) and process wastewater (gallons or acre-inches) transferred to other persons by the facility during the annual reporting period and a calculation of the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and total salt content of this waste;

“7. Total number of acres and the Assessor Parcel Numbers for all land application areas;

“8. Total number of acres and the Assessor Parcel Numbers of property that were used for land application of manure and process wastewater during the annual reporting period;

“9. Summary of all manure and process wastewater discharges from the production area to surface water or to land areas (land application areas or otherwise) when not in accordance with the facility’s Nutrient Management Plan that occurred during the annual reporting period, including date, time, location, approximate volume, a map showing discharge and sample locations, rationale for sample locations, and method of measuring discharge flows;

“10. Summary of all storm water discharges from the production area to surface water during the annual reporting period, including the date, time, approximate volume, duration, location, and a map showing the discharge and sample locations, rationale for sample locations, and method of measuring discharge flows;

“11. Summary of all discharges from the land application area to surface water that have occurred during the annual reporting period, including the date, time, approximate volume, location, source of discharge (i.e., tailwater, process wastewater, or blended process wastewater), a map showing the discharge and sample locations, rationale for sample locations, and method of measuring discharge flows; [¶] . . . [¶]

“13. Copies of all manure/process wastewater tracking manifests for the reporting period; [¶] . . . [¶]

“15. Copies of laboratory analyses of all discharges (manure, process wastewater, or tailwater), surface water (upstream and downstream of a discharge), and storm water, including chain-of-custody forms and laboratory quality assurance/quality control results;

“16. Tabulated analytical data for samples of manure, process wastewater, irrigation water, soil, and plant tissue. The data shall be tabulated to clearly show sample dates, constituents analyzed, constituent concentrations, and detection limits . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Groundwater Reporting Section

“Groundwater monitoring results shall be included with the annual reports.

“1. Dischargers that monitor supply wells and subsurface (tile) drainage systems only shall submit information on the location of sample collection and all field and laboratory data, including all laboratory analyses (including chain-of-custody forms and laboratory quality assurance/quality control results).

“2. Dischargers that have monitoring well systems shall include all laboratory analyses (including chain-of-custody forms and laboratory quality assurance/quality control results) and tabular and graphical summaries of the monitoring data. Data shall be tabulated to clearly show the sample dates, constituents analyzed, constituent concentrations, detection limits, depth to groundwater, and groundwater elevations. Graphical summaries of groundwater gradients and flow directions shall also be included. Each groundwater monitoring report shall include a summary data table of all historical and current groundwater elevations and analytical results. . . .

“Storm Water Reporting Section

“Storm water monitoring results will be included in the annual report. The report shall include a map showing all sample locations for all land application areas, rationale for all sampling locations, a discussion of how storm water flow measurements were made, the results (including the laboratory analyses, chain of custody forms, and laboratory quality assurance/quality control results) of all samples of storm water, and any modifications made to the facility or sampling plan in response to pollutants detected in storm water. The annual report must also include documentation if no significant discharge of storm water occurred from the land application area(s) or if it was not possible to collect any of the required samples or perform visual observations due to adverse climatic conditions.”

An attached “INFORMATION SHEET” provided “background information relative to” and discussed “the various requirements of” the 2007 Order. It read in part:

“[The 2007] Order implements the State laws and regulations relevant to confined animal facilities. [The 2007] Order will serve as general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges of waste from existing milk cow dairies . . . . This Information Sheet is a part of the [2007] Order.

“All dairies covered under [the 2007] Order are required to:

“● Comply with all provisions of the [2007] Order [¶] . . . [¶]

“● Monitor wastewater, soil, crops, manure, surface water discharges, and storm water discharges

“● Monitor surface water and groundwater

“● Keep records for the production and land application areas

“● Submit annual monitoring reports

“[REGIONAL] BOARD AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT ORDERS

“The . . . authority to regulate waste discharges that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, which includes both surface water and groundwater, and the prevention of nuisance, is found in the Porter-Cologne . . . Act . . . . Regulation is accomplished through issuance of WDRs or the waiver of such requirements. All confined animal facilities are subject to this regulatory authority. [¶] . . . [¶]

“. . . Section 13263[, subdivision ](i) authorizes the issuance of general orders to regulate discharges of waste that meet specified criteria. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] A general order for existing dairy facilities is appropriate because they: (a) involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, where animals are confined and wastes are managed by onsite storage, land application, or removal offsite; (b) discharge the same type of waste, primarily animal waste; (c) are subject to State regulations that impose the same or similar treatment standards; (d) have the same potential to impact surface water and groundwater; and (e) given the large number of facilities and their similarities, existing dairies are more appropriately regulated under general WDRs rather than individual WDRs. [¶] . . . [¶]

“DAIRY WASTES [¶] . . . [¶]

“Waste generated at dairies is stored dry in piles or in liquid form in waste retention ponds. The wastes are then applied to cropland or transported off-site for utilization on cropland as a nutrient source. These nutrient-laden materials are applied to soils of varying character and drainage characteristics, varying proximity to surface drainages and waterways, different character of geology and depth to groundwater. Because of the site variability, [the 2007] Order requires the development of a Nutrient Management Plan that is field specific to ensure that optimum nutrient utilization takes place. Although the waste materials provide nutrients to crops, they can create nuisance conditions if improperly managed or cause pollution of surface water and/or groundwater if site conditions are not taken into account in preparing a nutrient utilization and management strategy. [The 2007] Order regulates the management of dairy wastes onsite and requires monitoring and continuous tracking of materials being taken off-site for utilization.

“Dairy operators typically use chemicals such as cleaning products to disinfect their milking equipment, footbaths to maintain the health of their herd, and pesticides in both the production area and land application area. Some portion of some of these chemicals may be commingled with process wastewater before it is stored in the retention pond. [The 2007] Order requires Dischargers to identify the chemicals that are stored in the waste storage system or that could be discharged to surface water or ground water and the approximate amounts used annually at their dairy.

“Manure from dairies contains high concentrations of salts (total dissolved solids, including constituents such as sodium and chloride) derived primarily from the feed and water sources used in the dairy production activities. Some dairies also use water softening devices for milk barn cleaning and other activities and the concentrated brines or reject water is usually sent to the retention pond, thus increasing the salt concentrations further.

“Manure from dairies contains nutrients (including nitrogen, ammonia, phosphorus and potassium compounds) that can be used in crop production. A recent review of dairy manure by a University of California Committee of Experts . . . indicates that dairy cows in the Central Valley Region excrete approximately one (1) pound (lb[.]) of nitrogen per head per day and approximately 1.29 lbs[.] of inorganic salts (including only Na+, K+, and CI-) per head per day. Thus, a 1,000-cow dairy generates approximately 365,000 lbs[.] of nitrogen and 470,000 lbs[.] of inorganic salts (Na+, K+, and CI-) per year that must be managed to prevent impacts to water quality. [¶] . . . [¶]

“The application of manure or process wastewater to a land application area results in the discharge of salts and nitrogen compounds. Oxidation of nitrogen compounds (i.e., ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds) to nitrates . . . has the potential to degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater in the Region, if not properly managed. Runoff from, or over-application on, these land application areas poses a threat to surface water quality. A similar threat to groundwater exists if the wastes are applied to the land application area at rates that exceed crop needs. . . .

“Surface water can also be degraded and polluted by both the type and high concentrations of pollutants in dairy cow manure and manure wastewater. Ammonia in the waste is highly toxic to aquatic life and can suppress dissolved oxygen concentrations. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in the waste can cause excessive algal growth in surface waters, resulting in lower oxygen levels and which in turn causes fish and other organisms to die. The presence of pathogens in the water can create a public health threat through human contact with affected waters.

“The [Regional] Board has documented many discharges of waste from existing milk cow dairies to surface water. Since 2004, approximately 70 Dischargers have received Notices of Violation from the [Regional] Board for such discharges. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Storm water may contain pollutants from dairy wastes if the storm water is allowed to contact manured areas or commingle with wastewater from the dairy. . . .

“APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, PLANS, AND POLICIES

“Title 27 California Code of Regulations . . . .

“Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 1 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 27) prescribes minimum standards for discharges of animal waste at confined animal facilities to protect both surface water and groundwater. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] The [Regional] Board has received documentation of impacts to groundwater quality that indicates the Title 27 minimum standards may not be sufficient to adequately protect groundwater quality at all confined animal facilities in the Region. Adverse impacts to groundwater due to discharges from existing milk cow dairies have been detected in areas where groundwater is as deep as 120 feet below ground surface and in areas underlain by fine-grained sediments.

“Most of the existing milk cow dairies covered under the [2007] Order have been operating for many years and it is expected that groundwater quality may already be impacted at many of these dairies due to the past operations, including those dairies in compliance with the Title 27 regulations. For example, groundwater samples collected from 425 water supply wells (domestic and agricultural – stock watering and irrigation) on 88 dairies in Tulare County between August 2000 and June 2006 showed that approximately 39% of the wells sampled had nitrate concentrations greater than the maximum contaminant level for drinking water. At least one nitrate polluted well was found at approximately 63% of these dairies.

“[The 2007] Order requires Dischargers to monitor groundwater to ensure that groundwater protection is being achieved. Groundwater monitoring at existing dairies is necessary to: determine background groundwater quality; determine existing groundwater conditions near retention ponds, corrals, and land application areas; and determine the effect of the improved management practices required in the [2007] Order on groundwater quality. [¶] . . . [¶]

“Water Quality Control Plans

“The [Regional] Board has adopted Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins . . . and for the Tulare Lake Basin . . . . These two Basin Plans designate the beneficial uses of groundwater and surface waters of the Region, specify water quality objectives to protect those uses, and include implementation programs for achieving water quality objectives. . . . [The 2007] Order specifies requirements necessary to comply with the Basin Plans, including requirements to meet the water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses specified in the Basin Plans, and other applicable plans and policies. [¶] . . . [¶]

“Water Quality Objectives

“Pursuant to . . . [s]ection 13263[, subdivision ](a), WDRs must implement the Basin Plans, which require consideration of the beneficial uses of water, water quality objectives reasonably required to protect the beneficial uses, other waste discharges, the need to prevent nuisance conditions in the disposal area, and the receiving water. . . . The Basin Plans require that WDRs apply the most stringent objective for each constituent to ensure that discharges do not cause adverse [e]ffects to any beneficial use.

“Water quality objectives are the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics that are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area. Water quality objectives apply to all waters within a surface water or groundwater resource for which beneficial uses have been designated. . . .

“The primary waste constituents of concern due to discharges of waste from dairies are ammonia, nitrates, phosphorus, chloride, boron, salts, pathogens, and organic matter. The discharge of waste from dairies must not cause surface water or groundwater to exceed the applicable water quality objectives for those constituents.”

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2011-0068” dated October 13, 2011, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2007 Order by, inter alia, failing to submit a 2009 annual report by the July 1, 2010 deadline. A fine of $11,400 was imposed.

In a May 4, 2012 letter titled “GROUNDWATER MONITORING DIRECTIVE,” the Regional Board instructed the Sweeneys to comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program’s requirements.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2012-0070” dated August 2, 2012, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2007 Order by failing to submit a 2010 annual report by the July 1, 2011 deadline. A fine of $7,650 was imposed.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2013-0091” dated July 25, 2013, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2007 Order by, inter alia, failing to submit a 2011 annual report by the July 1, 2012 deadline. A fine of $15,000 was imposed.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2014-0119” dated October 9, 2014, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2007 Order by failing to submit a 2012 annual report by the July 1, 2013 deadline. A fine of $18,564 was imposed.

Pursuant to section 13320, the Sweeneys petitioned the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to review the Regional Board’s aforementioned actions. Each administrative appeal was dismissed. The Sweeneys subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and other relief with the superior court in case No. 15CECG02063.

As a result of litigation involving an entity that is not a party to this appeal (see generally Asociacion de Gente Unida por el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1255), on October 3, 2013, the Regional Board simultaneously rescinded the 2007 Order and adopted Order No. R5-2013-0122 “REISSUED WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ORDER [¶] FOR [¶] EXISTING MILK COW DAIRIES” (2013 Order), which incorporated “MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ORDER NO. R5-2013-0122” and an “INFORMATION SHEET.” The 2013 Order imposed more stringent wastewater control requirements in accordance with the State Board’s antidegradation policy. Otherwise, the Regional Board’s findings and rationale and the annual reporting requirement were essentially unchanged.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2015-0065” dated June 4, 2015, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2013 Order by failing to submit a 2013 annual report by the July 1, 2014 deadline. A fine of $34,650 was imposed. The Sweeneys petitioned the State Board to review the action and stay the waste discharge requirements. They subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and other relief with the superior court in case No. 15CECG03426.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2016-0063” dated August 18, 2016, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2013 Order by failing to submit a 2014 annual report by the July 1, 2015 deadline. A fine of $59,850 was imposed. The Sweeneys petitioned the State Board to review the action and stay the waste discharge requirements. They subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and other relief with the superior court in case No. 17CECG00146.

In “ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER R5-2017-0038” dated April 7, 2017, the Regional Board concluded the Sweeneys violated the 2013 Order by, in part, failing to submit a 2015 annual report by the July 1, 2016 deadline. A fine of $75,600 was imposed. The Sweeneys petitioned the State Board to review the action and stay the waste discharge requirements. They subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and other relief with the superior court in case No. 17CECG03030.

On April 7, 2017, the Regional Board adopted “CEASE AND DESIST ORDER R5-2017-0039,” which recounted numerous violations of the 2007 and 2013 Orders. The order instructed the Sweeneys to “commence compliance with the . . . requirement to submit Annual Reports by 1 July of each year,” inter alia. The Sweeneys petitioned the State Board to review the action and stay the waste discharge requirements. They subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandate and other relief with the superior court in case No. 17CECG02994.

The Sweeneys’ multiple petitions were consolidated, with case No. 15CECG02063 as the lead case. The causes of action for writ of mandate were bifurcated. In his brief and at the May 9, 2018 hearing, counsel for the Sweeneys argued section 13267, subdivision (b) required the Regional Board to explain and corroborate why reports were needed from the Sweeneys specifically, but it did not do so. The court denied the petitions. In an “ORDER AFTER HEARING” filed on May 11, 2018, it stated:

“[T]he [Regional] Board did serve petitioners with the 2007 and 2013 . . . Orders, which contained detailed explanations of the need for waste discharge reports from milk cow dairies such as petitioners’ dairy. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [T]he . . . Orders provided an extensive written explanation of the need for annual reports from milk cow dairies such as petitioners’, as well as supporting evidence for the demand. While petitioners contend that section 13267, subdivision (b)(1) requires an individualized explanation and evidence as to each person from whom a report is sought, the plain language of the statute does not impose such a requirement. The statute merely requires that the [Regional] Board must ‘provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.’ [Citation.] There is nothing in section 13267 that requires that the explanation be individualized or specific to the particular person from whom the report is demanded, or that the evidence must relate to that particular person’s dairy discharges. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The general findings of the 2007 and 2013 Orders appear to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute, as they make extensive findings about the potential for environmental harm from waste water discharge from Central Valley dairies and the need for reporting to reduce or mitigate this harm.”

The court added:

“Presumably, if the Legislature had wanted to include a requirement that the [Regional] Board provide specific, individualized explanations and evidence to each separate dairy before requesting a report, it would have said so explicitly in the language of section 13267[, subdivision ](b)(1). Since it did not, the court will not read such a requirement into the statute.”

Judgment was entered on July 13, 2018.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review
II.
“ ‘Questions of statutory interpretation . . . present questions of law, which we review de novo.’ [Citation.] ‘Because the interpretation and application of a statute are questions of law, an appellate court is not bound by the trial judge’s interpretation.’ [Citation.] Instead, ‘we undertake our own interpretation of the determinative statute and assess any claims raised by the parties completely anew.’ [Citation.]” (California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. County of Fresno (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 250, 265-266 (Cal. State Fresno).)

“ ‘In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look to the intent of the Legislature as expressed by the actual words of the statute’ [citation], ‘giving them a plain and commonsense meaning’ [citation]. ‘We examine the language first, as it is the language of the statute itself that has “successfully braved the legislative gauntlet.” [Citation.] “It is that [statutory] language which has been lobbied for, lobbied against, studied, proposed, drafted, restudied, redrafted, voted on in committee, amended, reamended, analyzed, reanalyzed, voted on by two houses of the Legislature, sent to a conference committee, and, after perhaps more lobbying, debate and analysis, finally signed ‘into law’ by the Governor. The same care and scrutiny does not befall the committee reports, caucus analyses, authors’ statements, legislative counsel digests and other documents which make up a statute’s ‘legislative history.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Cal. State Fresno, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 266.)

“ ‘If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.’ [Citation.] ‘When statutory language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and we will not indulge in it.’ [Citations.] ‘We will not speculate that the Legislature meant something other than what it said. Nor will we rewrite a statute to posit an unexpressed intent.’ [Citations.] ‘The plain meaning of words in a statute may be disregarded only when that meaning is “ ‘repugnant to the general purview of the act,’ or for some other compelling reason . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Cal. State Fresno, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 266.)

III. Analysis
IV.
Upon examining the language of section 13267, subdivision (b)(1), it is clear the Regional Board must provide a waste discharger with “a written explanation with regard to the need for” technical or monitoring program reports and “identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.” The record shows the 2007 and 2013 Orders supplied both. They stated the Central Valley Region milk cow dairies subjected thereto, a class of dairies which included the one owned and operated by the Sweeneys, discharge waste that could adversely affect the quality of surface water and groundwater in the area. Dairy manure and process wastewater contain nitrogen, ammonia, phosphorus, potassium, and salts, inter alia. These chemicals may also be carried by storm waters that contact the manure or wastewater. Groundwater monitoring of several local dairies between 2000 and 2006 confirmed at least one nitrate-polluted well at most sites and detected contamination as deep as 120 feet below the surface. The 2007 and 2013 Orders also pointed out the subject facilities, which had existed before October 2005 and were built decades earlier, likely had antiquated and inadequate waste management systems. Based on these circumstances, data—such as the information gleaned from annual reports—must be collected to accurately gauge the degree to which the waste generated by these dairies adversely impact water quality and develop enhanced protective practices. The Regional Board sufficiently demonstrated the burden of annual reports bore a reasonable relationship to the need for and the benefits to be obtained therefrom.

The Sweeneys counter: “The plain reading of section 13267[, subdivision ](b)(1) as a whole illustrates an individualized investigation process between the Regional Board and individual persons. The language in the section includes singular language like, ‘an investigation,’ . . . ‘the person,’ ‘a written explanation’, and ‘that person.’ The investigation process described in the statute is one that is individualized. Singular wording in the section indicates that this is an individualized procedure between the Regional Board and an individual person. . . .” We are not persuaded. First, under the Water Code, “[t]he singular number includes the plural, and the plural, the singular.” (§ 13; see Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892, 907 [“[U]nder the general rules of statutory construction, the use of a word in the singular form is interchangeable with the use of the word in the plural form.”].) Second, had the Legislature wanted to impose the condition advocated by the Sweeneys, i.e., the Regional Board must provide “individualized written explanations and evidence” showing that annual reporting is required from the Sweeneys themselves rather than milk cow dairies as a whole, “it could have easily included language to that effect. It did not.” (Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 187, 194.) “ ‘ “Where [the Legislature] has manifested its intention, [courts] may not manufacture ambiguity in order to defeat that intent.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Cal. State Fresno, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 268.) Third, the Sweeneys’ interpretation of section 13267, subdivision (b)(1) is incongruous with section 13263, subdivision (i), which authorized the Regional Board to prescribe general waste discharge requirements for milk cow dairies after finding such discharges “are produced by the same or similar operations,” “involve the same or similar types of waste,” “require the same or similar treatment standards,” and “are more appropriately regulated under general discharge requirements than individual discharge requirements.” (See Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 903 [“ ‘Statutory language should not be interpreted in isolation, but must be construed in the context of the entire statute of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.’ ”].)

The Sweeneys invited us to examine the legislative history. We decline. “ ‘[W]hen statutory language is clear and unambiguous, resort to the legislative history is unwarranted.’ [Citations.]” (Cal. State Fresno, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 268.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

DETJEN, J.

WE CONCUR:

HILL, P.J.

LEVY, J.