The groups filed their first suit in 2003, just after the waiver program began, however that lawsuit was dismissed. The waiver program was extended last year by the state board, and now a new lawsuit was filed Monday in Sacramento County Superior Court by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and San Francisco-based Baykeeper. According to the environmental group’s lawsuit state water officials still can’t answers the basic questions about the program. Questions they allege include how many discharges are taking place, which chemicals and how much of them are released into the environment, and whether the coalitions have made any improvement in water quality. "These coalitions are not responsible," said Sejal Choksi, program director for Baykeeper. "They're a shield or a cover to (farmers) not being held individually accountable."

Locally, the Amador Sacramento Water Quality Alliance is headed by Ione family farmer Dan Port. Port explains that the local alliance is part of the larger Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition. Port states that  the Amador County portion of the alliance alone has over 100 farmers involved in the water quality program. Members pay a 75 dollar membership fee per year and then pay around 1.00 per acre, again as a yearly fee.  The lawsuit claims that extending the waivers last year violated state environmental law as the Delta's ecosystem sinks from "bad to catastrophically bad." Locally, Port reports that water quality monitoring for pesticides and other potential contaminants has shown that there is very little impact to local water bodies.

The coalition has tested the Cosumnes River, Big Indian Creek, Dry Creek at Alta Mira Rd and Laguna Creek in the Sacramento Valley area. Currently, the group is testing drainages in the county by moving the testing to different areas through out the year. Tests have shown, states Port, that there is no serious problems due to the agricultural industry in the county. The coalition did discover one problem that was an indicator that an herbicide was possibly entering the water system in the Shenandoah Valley area. Further research indicated that this herbicide was not coming from the local farmers but a local agency performing weed abatement.

Another positive test result was received for e-coli, however upon retest the sample area tested negative. Port understands the frustration over the state designed program. He states “They ( the Central Valley Board) has not gotten their act together.” He adds that the local program is becoming better defined and now the Central Valley Board does tell the coalitions what to test for in terms of chemicals and toxins. “They are finally providing some direction” he says. Its important to note that the local coalition does have a Central Valley Board approved monitoring plan as well. Port adds “it is a new program and it’s taken awhile to get it going.” The Coalition idea has another benefit; they allow farmers to avoid a costly sampling, monitoring and reporting process that can approach $30,000 to $40,000 per year.(