The deadline for that was June 30, 2017, for the 127 medium- and high-priority basins; low- and very-low priority basins are encouraged, though not required, to form a GSA and write a GSP . Recent research from Conrad et al. highlights through case studies, based on interviews with regional stakeholders, that GSA formation looked very different from region to region. Kiparsky suggests that a number of the unanswered questions on SGMA implementation revolve around the social acceptance of policy definitions and mechanisms by different groundwater users. Social acceptance issues involve users’ perceptions of fairness, efficacy and other value-based dimensions that can raise tensions and lack clear, unambiguous solutions. Social acceptance is likely to become increasingly important as the emphasis now shifts to writing GSPs, which must include measurable objectives and detailed planning for achieving sustainable groundwater use within 20 years. The deadline for completing the GSPs is Jan. 31, 2020, for critically overdrafted basins and Jan. 31, 2022, for the remaining medium- and high priority basins . Despite the significance of farmers in the SGMA process, only a little empirical research has examined their perceptions of SGMA implementation, which may be of critical importance for the functioning of GSAs and the implementation of GSPs. In a snapshot of three farmers’ perspectives on SGMA, Rudnick et al. brought attention to the burden different farm sizes and systems may face under the new regulation and called for better understanding of stakeholder needs to facilitate the SGMA process.

To help fill the gap in empirical literature,raspberries for containers we collected the perspectives of farmers in Yolo County, California. Our work presents an early view of their perspectives on the factors that influence water availability and management and of the approaches they propose for SGMA implementation. With a groundwater basin that has been categorized under SGMA as high/medium priority, Yolo County provides an opportunity to examine the GSA process in context. Located on alluvial plains in the Sacramento Valley region of the Northern Central Valley, it supports vibrant and diverse agricultural production, including rice, cattle grazed in summer-dry grasslands and savannas, and perennial, vegetable, and row crops . In 2015, the top 10 commodities in Yolo County were processing tomatoes, almonds, wine grapes, organic production, walnuts, sunflower seed, rice, alfalfa hay, cattle and nursery products. The county had more than 90 direct export partners, indicating its importance in a global agricultural system . Of the 653,449 acres in the county, 531,902 are agricultural land, including grazing land . To explore farmers’ perceptions, we used the drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses framework . In particular, we asked for farmers’ perspectives on drivers of recent water use, pressures current water users faced, changes in the state of water, impacts of these changes and responses they had implemented and how they wanted SGMA implementation to be designed. Focus groups took place in October 2016 in Yolo County. With assistance from the Yolo County Flood Control and Conservation District, we used an organizational recruitment strategy, relying on the district as a key stakeholder in the GSA process with significant local connections to identify and recruit farmer participants .

Farmers were selected to represent a diversity of different farm systems and agricultural products . We designed 10 questions for the focus groups and recruited 20 farmers into four focus groups . Focus groups were audio recorded, and the recordings were professionally transcribed to facilitate analysis. Using the framework approach for qualitative research , we drew upon the DPSIR framework and coded using NVivo qualitative data analysis software . We organized a set of codes into emergent categories. Then, using a systematic approach, we double-coded transcripts using the framework categories and assessed coding agreement. Overall coding agreement for all categories and all focus groups was 95%; researchers discussed coding disagreements and recategorized as necessary. Results presented here represent dominant themes in the analysis, grouped by DPSIR codes and subcodes .Farmers stated that both agricultural and non-agricultural uses are important drivers of water use in Yolo County and California. Agricultural water uses stem from a diversity of farm sizes, cropping patterns and livestock types. Despite agriculture’s long history in the region, many farmers reported that new drivers are changing the landscape, including an increase in permanent crops, urbanization and new agricultural development of previously uncultivated areas. Most farmers reported using a mix of surface water and groundwater, although in certain parts of the region farmers have access to only groundwater. Farmers expressed that there had been an increasing reliance on groundwater irrigation, driven by drought in the past several years and new agricultural development, which was served by new wells and the lowering of existing wells.

Some farmers said that developers were in many cases developing marginal land with highly erodible soil, which might result in unexpected development impacts. Some farmers who had been in Yolo County prior to the recent agricultural development stated they did not believe they could compete with the rising costs of land and with developers. There was a sense amongst many focus group participants that nonlocals did not have the same sense of stewardship or responsibility. Many farmers expressed that the increase in orchards had put drip irrigation on lands that were previously unirrigated. Some of these farmers felt that drip might not be decreasing overall water use as expected, because it had facilitated this new development and did not allow for the capture and reuse of tail water. However, other farmers acknowledged that drip was increasing yields, which meant that less water was producing more food overall, though the systems were expensive. Farmers are also using furrow and flood irrigation technology in the county. Farmers perceived these drivers and pressures to be affecting the state of water quality and quantity. New development of orchards and wells were taking place in erodible areas and subsidence was evident in regions that relied exclusively on groundwater for irrigation. Because of the transition by many to drip irrigation, farmers felt that less water leaves their fields now for use by downstream users or groundwater recharge. Also, farmers said that soil salts and boron in the irrigation water were quality issues. Boron in the water was an issue in parts of the county, especially because of its toxicity in trees . Farmers expressed that surface water was often challenging to pump and filter because of sediments and algae; they suggested cleaner surface water might alleviate pressures on groundwater. Surface water availability in the county ebbed and flowed, and farmers acknowledged that one rain event could change a whole season. However, sometimes even when lakes and dams were full, farmers, especially those near the Sacramento River, couldn’t get access to surface water, which might occur when water was prioritized for environmental use and became unavailable to agriculture. Farmers reported the impact of the water quantity and quality changes on access to water, economic returns and the functioning of local ecosystems. Farmers felt that increases in irrigation efficiency with drip irrigation had allowed for agricultural expansion in the county. With respect to water quantity,blueberries in pots recent good rain years had led to better water availability; however, some farmers felt surface water availability for agriculture was inconsistent even in wet years. When surface water was available, farmers reported that groundwater wells were positively affected. Most farmers expressed the opinion that groundwater use should be second to surface water use. While some farmers had dug deeper wells in recent years, others reflected that many wells had remained productive. New and deeper wells had also negatively affected some domestic wells. Given recent changes to water availability and shortages statewide, a small number of farmers were pumping groundwater to send south or trade out of the county. According to farmers, water quantity changes had also had economic and ecosystem impacts. Water was very expensive to pump, and too costly to let run off their fields, so farmers have been making significant investments in water infrastructure. Land was becoming a new limited resource in the county due to rising costs, which resulted in increasing land values.

If farmers fallowed land because of lack of water, they believed the economic impacts to farming would reverberate across the county through dwindling income in support industries and other businesses and less demand for farm workers. In terms of ecosystem impacts, many farmers mentioned that the lack of water had negative effects on habitat, fish and waterfowl and that springs in the county were drying up. Farmers reported that increases in irrigation efficiency also result in less water for habitat. Farmers also mentioned that they would prefer to see bottom-up processes, but they already felt written out of the process because they could not officially be part of the GSA. They suggested that there was not a one-size-fits-all solution to groundwater management in the state, so a focus on local context and needs was important. Farmers expressed that they would like SGMA to take a solutions-oriented approach, integrating development and efficiency improvements. However, they acknowledged that the success of SGMA might be a challenge because it was difficult to regulate stewardship. Farmers also mentioned that SGMA success might require a new paradigm of water rights and water-use priorities. Finally, many said that sustainable management of groundwater required a better understanding of the groundwater systems in the county, which should include farmer intuition and experience combined with science.The sustainable groundwater plans could encourage the use of surface water over groundwater. The availability of cleaner surface water for irrigation use was one change farmers suggested could aid in facilitating the prioritization of surface water use over groundwater. Some farmers also mentioned that a change in electricity contracts, such as removing the contractual obligation to pump groundwater when surface water was available, could help farmers transition away from groundwater reliance. Metam sodium, 1, 3-dichloropropene , methyl bromide, and chloropicrin are high use agricultural fumigants that account for about 20% of the annual pesticide usage in California . These fumigants are known respiratory toxicants and were the top four pesticides ranked by chronic health risk based on a risk assessment conducted in the early 2000s . Methyl bromide, 1, 3-DCP and chloropicrin have also been identified as the top three pesticides of public health concern used near schools . An evaluation of pesticide drift-related illnesses in 11 states found that the largest percentage of cases were related to fumigant applications, indicating the particularly hazardous nature of these substances . Methyl bromide was banned by the Montreal Protocol due to harmful effects on the ozone layer and is currently being phased out of use, resulting in increased usage of chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3-DCP in recent years . Cases of acute methyl bromide exposure in adults and children have produced symptoms such as shortness of breath, pulmonary edema, cough, respiratory irritation and respiratory arrest . In the Agricultural Health Study, which examines pesticides and health in a cohort of pesticide applicators and their families, methyl bromide application was associated with higher prevalence of chronic bronchitis in nonsmoking wives of farmers . Metam sodium degrades into methylisothiocyanate, which is known to irritate respiratory tissue , and then further breaks down into methylisocyanate, the active ingredient responsible for the Bhopal tragedy that killed more than 3500 people . In the Bhopal tragedy the most common and serious problems were related to respiratory symptoms . Cases of metam sodium-related illnesses have involved minor respiratory symptoms including coughing and dyspnea . A metam sodium spill in California resulted in persistent respiratoryhealth problems for nearby residents . In a case study of drift from a metam sodium application in California, an association between cases of respiratory illness in nearby residents and proximity to the application area was observed . Increased respiratory symptoms have been reported as a result of community exposure to chloropicrin following application . A larger analysis of chloropicrin-related illness in California from 1992–2003 found that 54% of cases involved respiratory irritation . Toxicology studies conducted on rodents have shown that 1, 3-DCP exposure is related to benign lung tumor incidence as well as enlargement of the respiratory epithelium . Several epidemiological studies have found an association between occupational exposure to pesticides and an increased risk of respiratory symptoms and asthma . No research to date has been conducted on fumigant exposure and respiratory health in children, who are particularly vulnerable to inhalation risk due to relatively higher inhalation-rate-to-body-weight ratios .