The NPF framework is used to identify and demonstrate the implications of narratives for the design of SB 700 . The framework identifies a basic structure of narratives and provides basic belief system linkages and preliminary hypotheses. The basic structures of a narrative include “a setting or context; a plot that introduces a temporal element .Providing both the relationships between the setting and characters, and structuring causal mechanisms; characters who are fixers of the problem , causers of the problem , or victims ; and the moral of the story, where a policy solution is normally offered”.This structure is grounded in a belief system that anchors the narrative “in generalizable content to limit variability” . From this premise, one can test hypotheses at both micro and meso levels . This framework fits with elements of Schneider and Ingram’s theory of policy design, which allows the NPF to be used to explore how narratives shape policy design. The key linkage is the concept of socially constructed target populations. This refers to the recognition of shared characteristics that distinguish a target population as socially meaningful, and the attribution of specific valence-oriented symbols and images to the characteristics” . Positive constructions label target populations as “deserving,” “honest,” and driven by “public interest.” Negative constructions label target populations as “undeserving,” “dishonest,” and “self-interested.” These portrayals are captured in the NPF by the discussion of characters as part of the narrative structure. Narratives utilizing the social constructions of target populations influence the other aspects of policy design including policy tools, agents,indoor vertical farming and implementation structures. This allows for meso-level hypotheses between narratives and different aspects of policy design.

Narratives serve to amplify our notions of who is “deserving” and “undeserving” of the benefits of government policy. The credibility of narratives depends on tapping into the preconceived ideas of groups in the larger social context . Policy tools “are elements in policy design that cause agents or targets to do something they would not otherwise do with the intention of modifying behavior to solve public problems or attain policy goals” . The choice of tools reflects the assumptions and biases about how different people and targets behave . Policy tools applied to deserving target populations emphasize the positive aspects of the group. Capacity-building and learning tools reward with benefits and penalize with burdens. These tools tend to see the group as being able to act independently of the policymaker. However, undeserving groups will be on the receiving end of a combination of sanctions and authority-laden tools. Undeserving target populations are treated in a coercive manner with respect to burdens. Thus, as a narrative portrays a target population in a more positive way, the more likely policy tools are to emphasize the positive aspects of this group. According to Schneider and Ingram , agents are “the means for delivering policy to target populations.” The implementation structure refers to the relationships among various agents and their connections to target groups. Policymakers reward deserving groups in a highly visible way. Strong statutes that clearly provide the reward directly in the legislation are used frequently. Placing burdens on the deserving groups usually entails an approach to implementation that seeks to build consensus and support for the policy.Agents and implementation structures tend to operate differently for undeserving groups. The assessment of burdens is done very visibly in a strongly worded statute.

The rewarding of benefits is done using a more decentralized process, although the statute may provide specific eligibility criteria . Thus, as a narrative portrays a target population in a more positive way, the more likely agents and implementation structures directly reward this group. Roe’s narrative policy analysis was applied to the materials making up the SB 700 database. In all, there were 202 discrete problem statements identified in the texts. The aggregation of these individual statements revealed four major patterns of problem-cause relationships. Narratives play an important role in shaping the social construction of populations targeted by SB 700. They capture the context of the struggle to end California agriculture’s exemption to air pollution permits. This struggle takes place in the state legislature and has a very partisan base. Democrats assemble a coalition of environmental and public health groups in support of SB 700. Republicans construct a coalition of various agricultural and municipal organizations to oppose the legislation. The following is a discussion of these four narratives and their varying constructions of target population. Thus, it is a combination of natural and demographic factors, along with a variety of mobile and stationary sources that emit harmful air contaminants in the valley. This narrative establishes two important ideas that carry through the rest of the policy discourse. The first is that air quality in the San Joaquin Valley is bad. Numbers play an important role in establishing air quality as a problem that needs to be solved. In particular, EPA has established national ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM-10. The San Joaquin Valley Air Control District is in serious non-attainment for PM-10 and severe non-attainment for ozone with the possibility of moving to extreme non-attainment . The second foundational element is that this poor air quality leads to adverse health and environmental impacts . These are the victims of the narrative. Ozone and particulate matter are associated with a variety of health effects including reduced lung function, permanent lung damage, increased risk of cardiac death, increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease, and aggravated asthma .

Of all these, the incidence of childhood asthma garners the most attention. According to figures from 2001, 16.4% of children in Fresno County were reported as having asthma . This is higher than the statewide rate of less than 10% and the national rate of 5.5% . Grossi et al. note, “Health officials cite the number of children with asthma in the valley when advocating for stricter pollution standards.” In addition to these figures, the authors of “Last Gasp” utilize personal vignettes to drive home the human toll exacted by exposure to high levels of these pollutants. Institutional sources are also indicted in the narrative. According to Deborah Stone , problems may be “caused by a web of large, long-standing organizations with ingrained patterns of behavior.” Some claim that the interaction of various government officials with one another and industry have led to delays in cleaning up the valley’s air. Grossi et al. note, “The valley’s last 30 years are littered with accounts of the federal government issuing proposals,edicts and threats to clean up the air, only to accept delays and compromises after meeting resistance. Industries, local elected officials, and even state regulators have had a hand in the process.” The EPA has the power to sanction noncompliance with the Clean Air Act; it has a history of backpedaling. In the 1990s, CARB underestimated vehicle pollution emissions and failed to act in a timely manner. The SJVAPCD has been accused of bowing to various industry pressures and not pursuing stronger emission reducing strategies . Natural and institutional forces aside, there is no shortage of “villains” contributing to the polluted valley air. Chief among these are passenger cars and trucks, gross polluters, and diesel trucks . All told, these and other mobile sources account for 56% of NOx and 41% of VOCs emitted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.Emissions from sources such as farm diesel engines and dairy operations account for 54% of particulate matter and 25% of VOCs in the valley’s atmosphere.

In addition to these major categories, sprawling development encourages more driving and less environmentally friendly modes of transportation . Complex systems and institutional causes make finding policy solutions difficult. Stone notes “Complex explanations are not very useful in politics,hydroponic vertical farming precisely because they do not offer a single locus of control, a plausible candidate to take responsibility for a problem, or a point of leverage to fix a problem.” However, the complex cause narrative does provide some insights into the discourse surrounding SB 700. It establishes two ideas taken as givens by all participants in the discourse. Air pollution in the valley is bad and it is related to adverse health effects. Other narratives take these as facts not to be disputed. The narratives to follow emphasize selected pieces of the multi-causal chain and deemphasize others. This is done to accomplish the strategic ends of different actors in the policy process. Thus, the complex cause narrative acts as a context or backdrop for the coming discourse. In the complex cause narrative, federalism functioned to delay the process of cleaning up the air. In this narrative, the federal relationship will serve as an incentive for California to end agriculture’s exemption to Clean Air Act permits. This sets off a story of potential decline. On May 14, 2002, the EPA and Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund settled a lawsuit concerning whether or not EPA should regulate major agricultural sources of pollution. Under the settlement, the EPA found California’s exemption for agriculture violated Title V of the Clean Air Act. Thus, “if the state fails to revise its agricultural exemptions, increased pollution offsets will take effect on November 15, 2003, and California will lose its federal highway funding on May 15, 2004” . Pollution offsets would be imposed on new and modified sources. Business and industry would pay increasing bills to expand their activities. Loss of the highway funding would amount to around $2.4 billion for 2004. Thus by not ending the state’s agricultural exemption, state policymakers and citizens became the victims of this narrative. The ending of the exemption became imperative. While there were alternative solutions, the approach taken by SB 700 argues agriculture is a significant contributor to air pollution and should be required to play a larger role in the cleanup effort. Florez believed the exemption needed to be repealed and regulations on agricultural sources extended, “We’re not taking our cue from EPA. . . . If farmers’ argument is going to be that the EPA says we don’t need to go that far, that’s not acceptable. We are not interested in doing the minimum. We want to clean the air” . Florez believed that the additional EPA requirements announced in June 2003 supported his argument. Specifically, the EPA announced that farms must be included under new source review permits . Florez argued, “There is no way to avoid it.You have to remove it now to make sure the state can comply with all of the Clean Air Act” . As the clock ticked closer to the imposition of sanctions, wholesale repeal of the exemption gained momentum. As Fitzenberger states, “agricultural leaders knew some form of SB 700 had to pass. It is the only bill to lift the exemption, and failing to do so could lead to a loss of billions of dollars in highway funds and increased fees for some businesses” . This narrative is structured around intentional cause. This suggests that agriculture interests and their political supporters have willfully supported the exemption, and this allowed their contributions to poor air quality to grow . While numbers are used to detail the level of various pollutants emitted from agricultural sources, comparisons are used to put the numbers in context. According to SJVAPCD and CARB data, agricultural sources are the: “Largest source of nitrogen oxide and second largest source of sulfur oxide —precursors of smog; largest source of the volatile organic compounds and reactive gases —precursor to smog; and second largest source of particulate matter.” . Grossi et al. offer another unflattering comparison, “During summer, the $14 billion agriculture industry creates more lung-searing pollution than the valley’s eight highest-polluting large businesses combined” . And the significance is growing, “For one of the two major, smog-making pollutants, reactive organic gases, livestock waste is projected to pass cars in 2005. Farm equipment in 2005 will run second only to heavy-duty diesel trucks for nitrogen oxides, the other major smog ingredient” . Some supporters of SB 700 state this argument even more directly. They argue agriculture’s longstanding exemption from air permits has allowed the industry to “grow” its contribution to air pollution relative to other groups.