These results corroborate with previous studies demonstrating that ecological and moral concerns matter in farmer decision-making, and that motivations are not exclusively profit-driven . The later statement seems intuitive—growers would hope policymakers would include a diverse range of perspectives into their decisions, especially in light of growers’ sentiments on a lack of stakeholder participation during the updated waiver. Interestingly, one issue that more farmers agreed with in 2006, yet more respondents disagreed with in 2015 was that “management practice requirements of the Agricultural Waiver are fair to growers.” As described in Chapter 3, fairness was a hotly contested issue in the 2012 Agricultural Waiver negotiation process, spanning a number of equity issues from the types of BMPs required to the cost and unequal burdens of tiered mandates. This finding is another testament to farmers’ increasing frustration with the Ag Waiver process and mandates, as alluded to by the Farm Bureau. The final series of questions in the survey asked growers about their trust and communication with other groups and water quality agencies as well as the value of information they received from those organizations . In both years, environmental groups were the least trusted and had the least contact frequency, whereas other farmers were the most communicated with but not necessarily the most trusted. Results from a Pearson’s correlation test between information value and trust found a strong positive relationship between the two variables, the coefficients were close to a perfect positive relationship , only varying between 0.80 and 0.99. While data from this survey is not sufficient to test a causal relationship, for example, if the quality of information from a given agency influenced feelings of trust, however,procona valencia buckets these results do substantiate the institutional rational choice model’s belief that there is indeed a strong relationship between information and trust There also appeared to be a close positive relationship between the amount of communication, trust and information value associated with a given organization .

These results support the body of literature on the connection between trust and contact frequency. Interestingly, results show a few exceptions to this trend, just as they did in Lubell and Fulton’s study. Growers reported a dip in trust despite more communication in relationships with a few different organizations, all of which had regulatory roles, including the Regional Board and Preservation, Inc., and to a lesser extent, the County Agricultural Commissioners office. These cases could be examples of the “institutional distance” phenomenon , whereby regulators might have a higher frequency of contact with growers, but a physical distance prevents face-to-face communication and/or centralized decision making making the institutional distance greater. Another possible explanation for the dip in trust despite more communication could be due to different values and interests between growers and regulatory agencies, as described by the Advocacy Coalition Framework . These different interests could also help explain the low scores on trust for the other group that might be perceived as having very different view and interests than growers—environmental groups, which scored 3.6 out of 10 in 2006, and 2.8 in 2015. Despite these exceptions, a more in depth look at the association between trust and communication confirms a strong relstionship between the two variables for most non-regulatory agencies. The 2015 survey results show that there was a significant improvement in the amount of trust when a grower had contact with an organization compared to when it did not have any contact with that group . The only two exceptions to this trend were farmers’ relationships to the Regional Board and farmers’ relationships to other farmers. In both cases, trust did not significantly improve with contact, perhaps suggesting that the complex historical relationships with these two polarizing groups—the group regulating farms and the group most aligned with your values —overshadows factors such as contact frequency when measuring trust. To test the Farm Bureau’s observation of trust decreasing between the two Agricultural Waivers, mean trust in an agency were compared side by side for the two surveyed years and significance was tested in a two-tailed t-test . Results show that trust in the Regional Board decreased significantly between 2006 and 2015. Yet despite the significant decline, the mean trust scores for the Regional Board were relatively close between the two surveys .

Another group that experienced a significant decrease in trust over this time period was environmental groups . While the information from the survey is not comprehensive enough to verify a causal relationship between decreased trust and the two Ag Waivers, the significant decrease in trust over time does give credence to the Farm Bureau’s concern about growers’ declining relationship with the primary regulatory agency, the Regional Board. Interestingly, one group that might have been expected to gain trust from growers between the two surveys, but did not, was Preservation, Inc. Created in 2004, Preservation, Inc. was still little known during the first survey, but by the second survey, the agency was providing valuable services to the vast majority of growers. One possible explanation for the unchanging trust in the primary monitoring agency despite more communication was that their core values differed substantially, heavily swaying growers’ perception of the agency. Finally, a subset of responses from the third set of questions, opinions on water quality management practices, and a subset of responses related to trust from the fourth set of questions, were assessed for correlatation, with a particular attention to trust in the Regional Board. Findings suggest that trust in the Regional Board is associated with growers’ opinions on water quality management practices . Trust in the Regional Board was greater among growers who agreed or strongly agreed with statements related to the fairness, effectivness and success of water mangement practices mandated in the Ag Waiver. Trust in the Regional Board was lower among growers who disagreed with these statements. These last set of findings are intutive, given previous research on trust being a function of aligning core beliefs between two groups. As Lubell states “People will trust actors who they believe have very similar beliefs and interests to their own, and their trust will decline as the difference in policy-core beliefs increases.” Growers trusted the Regional Board more when they agreed or strongly agreed with the Regional Board’s decisions and opinions on water quality practices, and growers trust in the Regional Board declined when they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the BMP provisions implemented in the Ag Waiver. Interestingly, there is a stronger correlation between those growers that “agreed” with statements than than those growers that “strongly agreed, ” perhaps indicating a threshold or a range at which growers trust is correlated with beliefs.

Previous research shows that repeated, face-to-face communication is a promising tool to bolster trust between water quality agencies and growers, as well as to alter attitudes relating to water quality management practices. Prior studies also demonstrate that other factors, such as historical relationships, core values, and institutional distance can act as equally strong forces in influencing trust, undermining the significance and value of communication between policy stakeholders . Results from this study corroborate with this literature. Growers’ trust in the majority of regional agricultural and water quality groups were closely correlated with the amount of communication as well as the value of information they received from that group. However,procona buckets growers’ trust in a few agencies, all with regulatory arms, did not correlate with contact frequency or information value. This was true in 2006, but much more so in 2015, and this was particularly true of growers trust in the primary regulatory agency, the Regional Board. These findings suggest that growers’ frequency of contact with the Regional Board, which increased between 2006 and 2015, did not relate to trust in the regulatory agency, which decreased between 2006 and 2015. These results do not suggest, however, that communication with regulatory agencies altogether does not matter. Rather, communication could play an important role in trust-building relationships, as suggested by the literature, but more research is needed into the types of communication utilized by the Regional Board, how communication has changed over time and how it might influence relationships with the regulated group. Preliminary research from a document review, discussed below, demonstrates that communication patterns are becoming more institutionally distant and deserves more research attention. While contact frequency with the Regional Board was not correlated to trust, opinions of water quality practices were. As the last set of findings illustrate, in 2015 there was a positive relationship between growers’ trust in the Regional Board and their opinions on water quality managemnt deicisons. These results cannot confirm causation—that trust leads to a convergence of beliefs, or a convergence of beliefs leads to trust; however, prior studies suggest the later. To build trust when two rival political actors do not hold the same views is not a simple task, espcially because core beliefs can be culturally embedded or shapped by historical events. However, building trust between adversaries is not impossible and should begin by achieving agreement on, at very least, empircal issues with sound evidence. Leach and Sabatier offer a few ways to undertake this process: a “professional forum” exposing scientific evidence from competing coalitions mediated by a neautral facilitiator , starting negotiations with a period of “joint fact finding” and consensus-building on the basic dimensions of the various problems , and/or pursue empathy-building exercises such as field trips . Another aim of this study was to examine anecdotes from the Farm Bureau regarding declining trust and collaboration between farmers and the Regional Board over the course of the two Ag Waivers.

While encouraging accounts of a working, collaborative relationship between growers and the Regional Board during the first Agricultural Waiver are difficult to substantiate from the survey responses, results from this longitudinal study as well as further evidence from agriculture testimonies do confirm that what rapport remained after 2004 was markedly soured during the next round of negotiations. There was a significant drop in trust between the two Agricultural Waivers, and growers reported to be more frustrated by the policy process during the second Ag Waiver—the majority agreeing that regulations were “unfair” and “too tough” despite their perceived efforts in adopting water quality management practices and their desire to be involved in the policy process. These results are somewhat contrary to literature that assumes “trust ought to be correlated with the length, depth, and recency of past collaboration” ; since only eight years prior to the follow-up study, farmers and the Regional Board joined efforts to pen the first ever regulatory program for agricultural water quality in the Central Coast. Why did trust degrade over this time period? And what lessons might be learned for future Agricultural Waiver negotiations? One somewhat fatalistic explanation for the waning relationship between farmers and the Regional Board is that the decline was inevitable. Comfortable with the 2004 provisions that they had collaboratively designed, growers were frustrated by the idea of increasing mandates. Unavoidably, the 2004 Ag Waiver was going to be made tougher—scientists, the State, and the public demanded that the Regional Board act on the growing evidence that water quality was not improving. This first explanation has dismal implications for future Ag Waivers since it assumes that little could have been done to save a relationship that was fleeting and inevitably going to decline. A second, more plausible theory is that the approach the Regional Board staff took during the drafting of the second Ag Waiver, beyond simply increasing mandates, tainted relations. The first Agricultural Waiver took a softer, collaborative and educational approach, slowly easing the agricultural industry into water quality regulations. Whereas negotiations for the second Agricultural Waiver came out of the gates strong, proposing a very tough 2010 Draft Order that took a more centralized approach, categorizing farms into set tiers with coupled mandates, bringing individual monitoring into the fold for the first time and required certain blanket provisions for all farms. Several agricultural interests claimed the new regulatory program was “the most rigorous in the state” . Although the new waiver was significantly watered down by the time it passed in 2012 and was ratified by the State Board in 2013, the policy process leading up to the 2010 proposal greatly strained rapport, opening a rift between growers and the Regional Board that would be difficult to restore during that round of negotiations.