The survey also asked farmers to indicate any local trends in temperature, rainfall, water availability, drought, and flooding that they may have observed over the course of their farming career. In most cases a strong majority of respondents indicated that temperatures have stayed the same over time . However, a close examination of which way farmers tended to lean in their response, also yielded some important observations. For instance, a large minority indicated that local summer temperatures had decreased over time, while only 5.6 percent observed an increase. While contrary to statewide and global mean temperatures, this actually corresponds with local climate records that show a slight downward trend in maximum summer temperature over the course of the last 100 years . This trend in microclimate is only visible if summer maximum and minimum temperatures are examined independently, and has been linked in previous studies to a gradual expansion of irrigation throughout the Central Valley . The rationale is that higher rates of evapotranspiration in irrigated farmland can reduce maximum temperatures during the day, but higher soil moisture also increases summer minimum temperatures by reducing radiation cooling at night . This particular observation and explanation was also alluded to during a pre‐survey interview with a local extension agent.

Respondents who reported a decrease in local temperatures over time were also: more likely than average to think global climate is changing; less likely than average to think global temperatures are increasing; less likely to think humans are an important cause,blueberry packaging box and more likely to think that climate change presents more risks than opportunities . Thus, the tendency for some farmers to report a decrease in summer temperatures may reflect a nuanced understanding of their local microclimate, which could influence their overall views on global climate change. While a majority of farmers indicated that rainfall, drought, and flooding had not changed over the course of their career, a sizable minority reported that water availability had decreased, and less than 1 percent said it had increased. Interestingly, records from the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District do not fully corroborate farmers’ perceptions. In 1976, the newly constructed Indian Valley Reservoir began supplementing the District’s surface water supplies to local growers. This increased storage capacity has improved the ability of the District to deliver water to local farmers and also facilitated groundwater recharge, as demonstrated by a notable recovery in local ground water levels since the reservoir began operating . However, a recent drought in 2009 and 2010 reduced water releases in those years to less than 40 percent of the average for the preceding decade data, unpublished. The memory of this recent a drought may occupy a central place in farmers’ perception of water‐related trends.

Variations on this rationale have been offered elsewhere to explain farmers’ tendency to report declining precipitation and/or water availability even when the empirical record cannot support such claims.When asked to indicate their level of concern for various climate‐related impacts, farmers consistently showed greater concern for more regulations and higher energy prices followed by more volatile markets, new pests and diseases, changes in the availability of surface and groundwater resources, and more severe droughts . Risks associated with changes in summer temperatures were a more moderate concern to growers, while impacts such as spring flooding, freezing temperatures, and fewer winter chill hours tended to be of lesser concern. While this trend was generally consistent for all farmers, respondents with certain product types did show differences in the level of concern for impacts that were relevant to their farming operations . For instance, rice farmers tended to be more concerned about government regulations , the availability of surface water, and increased flooding; while fruit and nut tree growers expressed greater concern for groundwater supplies and winter chill hours. For most climate impact categories, those who grazed livestock were less concerned than other farmers. For example, growers who reported a decline in local water availability tended to show greater concern for most future impacts, with winter chill hours and government regulations being the only exceptions to this pattern. Likewise, farmers who reported a decrease in local rainfall over time were much more concerned about future severe droughts. Observations of past temperature change also resulted in corresponding concerns for future impact .

Consequently, those who felt that summer temperatures have decreased showed less concern for future heat waves, while those who reported a decrease in winter temperatures were more concerned about winter freezes. Results of the survey indicated significant relationships between farmers’ concern for future climate impacts and their inclination to adopt water‐related adaptation practices. Respondents with greater concern for drought and less reliable water were more likely to pump groundwater, drill new wells, and adopt drip irrigation . Those concerned about severe drought were more willing to adopt drought tolerant varieties of the crops that they already cultivate. Concerns for higher summer temperatures and heat waves were also linked with the intention to use drought tolerant crops. Adopting drip irrigation also tended to be linked with concern for fewer winter chill hours and more frequent winter freezes, a result likely driven by the widespread use of drip and micro‐sprinkler irrigation in perennial orchards and vineyards which are more sensitive to changes in winter temperature. Well drilling also followed the same pattern, albeit at a weaker level of significance. Respondents who indicated that they were likely to drill more wells, seek alternative water sources, or adopt drip irrigation were also more concerned about volatile markets, higher energy prices, and more government regulations in the future.The study was also interested in understanding what practices farmers are willing to adopt on a voluntary basis to reduce energy use and mitigate GHG emissions .

The majority of farmers in the survey were either likely or very likely to adopt energy‐saving measures such as reducing on‐farm energy consumption , investing in fuel‐efficient farm equipment and installing solar panels or wind turbines . Approximately 49.3 percent were also inclined to adopt conservation tillage. While a large majority of famers were willing to improve nitrogen use efficiency through improved timing and placement of fertilizers , only 22.8 percent said they were inclined to reduce their N application rate. Of the rice farmers surveyed, more than half said they were likely to modify their water and residue management to save energy and reduce emissions. Less than 7.0 percent of all respondents said they were likely to shift more of their land to organic production. Likewise, there was very little interest among the few livestock managers surveyed in mitigating emissions through changes to livestock diet or building methane digesters. The notable lack of interest in these livestock‐related practices is likely because intensive management of diet and manure is impractical for extensively grazed livestock on annual grasslands,blueberry packaging containers which is the dominant livestock system in Yolo County. Overall, these results indicate that farmers favor voluntary mitigation practices that have direct economic co‐benefits to the individual, particularly those that help keep their energy costs low.Our study also found significant relationships between a farmer’s views on climate change and their inclination to implement voluntary mitigation practices . More specifically, farmers who disagreed with the statement “The global climate is changing” were less likely to adopt 9 out of 14 mitigation practices than those who agreed with the statement. Likewise, those who were skeptical that human activities are an important cause of climate change were also less likely to adopt most mitigation practices . Those who disagreed with the statements that climate change presented more risks than benefits to global and local agriculture also tended to be less willing to adopt most of the mitigation practices included in the survey. Farmers obtain information about agriculture and climate change from a variety of sources. These sources of information are likely to inform farmers’ views on climate change and thus influence their willingness to adopt voluntary mitigation practices. In general, farmers who had frequent contact with local agricultural organizations were more likely to implement mitigation strategies . Notably, contact with the Yolo County Resource Conservation District had the most significant effect, with more frequent contact resulting in greater likelihood to adopt 9 of the 14 proposed mitigation practices. More frequent contact with the Center for Land‐Based Learning resulted in willingness to adopt 6 out of the 14 practices, while contact with the local irrigation district resulted in greater willingness to adopt 5 out of the 14 practices.

Contact with the Yolo County Farm Bureau, the University of California Cooperative Extension, and all other agricultural organizations resulted in greater likelihood of adoption for two to four mitigation practices. Stronger statistical relationships between certain organizations and the specific mitigation practices they regularly promote suggests that these programs are likely having a positive impact on the people they reach. For example, the willingness to plant trees increases with frequent contact with the Yolo County Resource Conservation District. This is likely an outcome of this organization’s sustained efforts to help local farmers restore riparian areas. Likewise, the strong link between on‐farm energy conservation and frequent contact with both the Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner and UC Cooperative Extension, suggests that local outreach programs related to these practices are having a beneficial effect. It also implies that further mitigation benefits may be possible if personnel and resources are made available to expand participation among farmers who rarely interact with these groups. However, resources for agricultural technical advisors and funding sources have declined in recent years, as summarized in a report by the California Climate and Agriculture Network .Table 5.9 shows the number of farmers that participate in organic certification, Williamson Act, Natural Resources Conservation Service‐Environmental Quality Incentives Program , and Land Trust programs. Participation in such government programs, which often focus on agricultural sustainability, may affect a farmer’s willingness to adopt mitigation practices. Our results support this hypothesis, and show that farmers who do not participate in these programs are also less likely to adopt various mitigation practices . While no practices consistently result in significant relationships for all four programs, many practices were significant in three out of these four programs, including planting trees, increasing orchard crop acreage, installing solar panels or wind turbines, and using conservation tillage. Participation in organic certification and EQIP each had significant results for 9 of the 14 practices and a number of high regression coefficients. In many cases, some of the mitigation practices suggested here are also encouraged or rewarded in the government programs listed above. For example, NRCS‐EQIP provides funding for farmers to replace their farm equipment and transition to organic agriculture . The findings also suggest that expanding the support for, and reach of, these government programs may help additional farmers implement mitigation practices on their farms.Results presented in Table 5.4 indicated that farmers are often more concerned about the future impact of government regulations than they are about the direct impacts of climate change. This ranking of concern is not surprising, given the gradual nature of climate change. However, it does underscore the importance of understanding how farmers view environmental regulations and government policies and whether or not these views influence their likelihood to adopt various mitigation practices. Our findings indicate that farmers who disagree with the statement, “environmental regulations are effective at protecting natural resources” were also less likely to adopt 9 out of 14 mitigation practices . Not surprisingly, farmers who were less inclined to participate in a government programs for climate change mitigation or adaptation were also less likely to adopt a large number of mitigation practices. These results indicate that farmers’ general views on the efficacy of environmental regulations has a strong impact on their inclination to adopt mitigation practices and participate in government programs related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. A detailed analysis of the external and psychological factors which influence the formation of farmers’ views on government programs and environmental regulations is beyond the scope of this study. However, our results do suggest that future studies should be designed with these objectives in mind.California’s Central Valley is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, yet it is facing some of the most rapid population growth in the state.