While institutional distance tends to be greater at the federal and state level, where decisions are centralized, the phenomenon can also be true at the regional level. Finally, Lubell and Fulton show that the power of communication on trust depends on the actors involved. In their study, the authors cite a strong relationship between contact frequency and trust between growers and other their agricultural networks, and that these positive relationships can spill over into influencing other factors, such as group participation, BMP adoption and policy satisfaction. However, contact frequency between growers and a different network—regulatory agencies— was not correlated with trust or other variables. Yet another influential and popular mechanism to garner trust and collaboration is through stakeholder partnerships, especially within the field of land use and water quality policy making . In their study on agricultural watershed management in the Central Valley, Lubell and Fulton show how stakeholder networks are a necessary component in collaborative policy, where trust is often an explicit goal. These networks can have an important influence on policy implementation through spreading information to others in their network, fostering social capital and enabling social change. Of course, the presence of stakeholder networks does not automatically pave the way for a harmonious process in which all actors and third-party organizations are in agreement and trust one another , but, as Lubell and Fulton demonstrate,black plastic plant pots bulk these networks can help encourage cooperation. The added benefits of these networks are especially important as the U.S. undergoes a major shift towards a new type of governance .

This new governance paradigm, called “networked governance” necessitates a different set of skills and alliances, which can bring together an array of third parties . Networked governance and its call for outreach and dialog does not automatically equate to absolute behavioral change overnight. Kingdon describes the alliance building process as a long period of “softening up” followed by tough political bargaining. The rich and complex relationships between regulators, regulated groups and other stakeholders is a decisive element woven into the policy process as well as on-farm decision-making.Press’ policy capacity model in his Saving Open Spaces book provides a particularly useful framework for integrating a comprehensive range of variables into an explanation of environmental protection measures. Press’ model is based on the assumption that communities possess different environmental solving abilities, which are influenced by three basic components: internal constraints and resources, a community’s civic resources and external constraints and resources. This study pays close attention to the second component, civic resources and what Press refers to as “civic environmentalism,” including but not limited to a community’s attitudes, expectations, norms, face-to-face relationships, information resources and social and political trust/distrust. The chapter specifically seeks to understand how such variables affect environmental decision-making. This study on farmers’ water quality management decisions, opinions and relationships in California’s Central Coast region is particularly well situated to contributing valuable insights to these bodies of work. WQ regulation in California’s Central Coast is laden with contentious issues of trust, collaboration and stakeholder involvement , and is characteristic of the “networked governance” paradigm.

A variety of third-party organizations in the Central Coast have arisen to assist the Regional Board in controlling water pollution and to help farmers comply with the conditions in the Agricultural Waiver. Consequently, these organizations have become deeply embedded in the regional governance and agricultural support networks. For example, Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc. manages the cooperative monitoring program 3 on behalf of growers in the Central Coast Agricultural Waiver; the California Department of Pesticide Regulation delivers statewide pesticide regulatory programs, and County Agricultural Commissioners offices regulate pesticide use on a local level, among other duties; local Farm Bureaus collaborate with other agricultural organizations to advocate and provide services for local farmers; and the University of California Extension and Resource Conservation Districts have established programs that provide technical and financial assistance to help growers integrate best management practices into farming systems. Each agency has a different relationship with regional farmers colored by historical interactions and distinct institutional goals. This context offers the ideal opportunity to compare and contrast farmers’ perceptions of trust, information value and communication with this diverse range of actors as well as how farmers’ views of these actors have changed over time and in response to two different agricultural WQ regulations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that issues of trust and communication are especially germane in the Central Coast region since regulatory relationships appear to be at a critical juncture. Local farming organizations have expressly voiced concerns over decreased collaboration between regulators and growers over the past decade. Eight years ago, in discussions leading up to the 2004 Agricultural Waiver, agricultural interests recognized that the problem of water quality was not going to fade, motivating the Farm Bureau, a trusted agricultural organization, to become part of the conversations and solutions .

The political context at the time—mounting cases of polluted drinking water, the passage of Senate Bill 390, which reasserted pressure on Regional Boards to take more responsibility for comprehensive water control, and overall public frustration with polluted waterways —set the stage for a unique regulatory process in which agricultural interests sought to support water regulations and become more involved . As one U.C. Extension agent described, The Farm Bureau “became instrumental in calming [the growers] down, deciding to be proactive, and work with others to convince the farming community that [water quality control measures] were worth investing in.” In 2004, The Farm Bureau reiterated these collaborative sentiments, stating that although “the Central Coast [Agricultural Waiver] program [was]n’t perfect,” the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board had taken a “constructive approach” . Eight years later, the extent of perceived collaboration among agricultural stakeholders in the regulatory process leading up to the 2012 Agricultural Waiver dramatically shifted. Instead of the Farm Bureau lauding the regulatory process as “constructive,” in 2012 the same organization called the process “flawed” and lacking in collaboration and participation from all stakeholders . Although the Farm Bureau’s perspective may shed light on an important trend occurring in the Central Coast regulatory process,procona system no research has yet examined growers’ opinions on trust, WQ issues and the regulatory process over time and the resultant policy implications. This research is the first to ground-truth changes in opinions and relationship patterns from hundreds of individual growers over a nine year period.This study utilizes data from two sets of public opinion surveys. The first round of surveys was conducted in 2006 by researchers at UC Davis and UC Cooperative Extension two years after the first Conditional Agricultural Waiver was adopted. This mail survey was delivered to 1,994 growers in the Santa Barbara and Southern San Luis Obispo counties of California’s Central Coast Region. The grower’s list was assembled from UC Cooperative Extension educational classes. A total of 454 surveys were received. Of these respondents, 34% report farming in Santa Barbara County, 54% in San Luis Obispo , and 7.7% in both counties. This first round of surveys employed Dillman’s “total design” method, which includes an introduction letter followed by two waves of survey packages and reminder postcards.The second round of surveys was sent out two years after the Ag Waiver was updated and implemented.4 To make accurate comparisons, the 2015 follow-up survey used the same survey techniques and prompts, with a few additional questions relevant to the updated 2012 Conditional Agricultural Waiver. Because the original 2006 list of growers was not publically available, the follow-up survey was sent to a list of all growers enrolled in the 2012 Agricultural Waiver program, which is publically available through the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The follow-up survey was conducted through an email survey portal since on-line formats have become a common means of communication with growers. After the growers’ contact lists were cleaned , the survey was delivered to a total of 1,089 enrolled growers throughout the Central Coast Region. A total of 230 surveys were received. Similar methods were used to the first survey, an introduction letter was sent out with the survey followed by two waves of survey reminders. Four categories of issues covered in the survey— implementation of WQ management practices, opinions on WQ issues, opinions on WQ practices, and opinions on trust, communication and information value of different WQ agencies and stakeholders—the study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. The analysis of survey results focused on changes in opinions and practices between 2006 and 2015. Qualitative methodologies included the two surveys and document analysis. Quantitative data analysis involved descriptive statistics, t-tests and Pearson’s R tests. A simple paired t-test was used to examine the differences in attitudes between 2006 and 2015 survey responses. Results from the t-test and associated t score were used to determine whether responses from the two different surveys were significantly different from each other, which can shed light on the impact of the 2012 Ag Waiver and as well as other factors that may have changed over time, such as water scarcity issues. The null hypothesis is that attitudes were the same in 2006 as they were in 2015. The level of significance was selected at α=0.05, or a 95% confidence interval. The independent variable is time, and the dependent variable is water quality practices and growers’ opinions. T-tests could be employed on questions where the dependent variable is measured at the continuous level and the independent variable consists of two related groups. While the subjects in the survey were not exactly the same, for example the 2006 survey only surveyed agricultural operators in the SLO and SB counties, and the 2015 survey interviewed agricultural operators enrolled in the Ag Waiver throughout the entire Central Coast; all survey respondents are growers in the Region under the same regulatory system, the Conditional Agricultural Waiver. Finally, in hypothesizing a close relationship between trust in a water quality agency and the information value received from that particular agency, Pearson’s correlation tests were employed to test how similar these relationships really were. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r, can range from -1 to +1, the stronger relationship between the two variables—trust and information value—the closer the value to -1 or +1. A second series of questions asked survey participants to share their opinions of WQ issues . Five WQ issues placed an average score of 5 or less, meaning growers thought these issues ranked closer to “no problem at all” than “a very extreme problem”, these included: pollution from pesticides, groundwater, fertilizers, surface water, and sediments. Of these, surface water pollution and fertilizer pollution significantly dropped in importance over the nine-year time period. Interestingly, despite perceiving these five WQ problems to be less severe than other problems, academics, scientists and regulators often cite these issues as the most problematic sources of WQ contamination . For example, in review of scientific data, Regional Board staff “found that many of the same areas that showed serious contamination from agricultural pollutants five years ago are still seriously contaminated” and that “staff does not believe there is improvement in nitrate concentrations in areas that are most heavily impacted” . Additionally, between 2006 and 2010, the EPA reported a 170% increase in toxicity in rivers, streams and lakes in California . More specifically, scientific studies published during this time period showed increasing evidence of ambient toxicity in the Central Coast region due to organophosphate pesticides While growers did not perceive what regulators and scientists have identified as the most serious regional water quality problems, they instead identified issues more directly impacting their farm viability and management practices as bigger threats. In the midst of a historic four-year drought, water scarcity unsurprisingly took top concern in the 2015 survey, up from the fourth concern in 2006. Another three of the top five issues worrying farmers were related to the regulatory process, rather than actual pollutants themselves. These included the financial costs of regulations, ineffective government policies, and obtaining permits. The significant increase of one policy concern in particular, “ineffective government regulations,” was expected in light of the Farm Bureau’s account of amplified frustration with the regulatory process over the same time period.These results indicate that farmers generally believe they are protecting water quality, have a duty to do so and that environmental goals are just as important as profitability.