The Narrative Policy Framework or NPF forms the primary theory guiding the analysis

In comparison to forest, agricultural habitats are less stable and more regularly disturbed.These attributes could preclude sustained competition and favor related species with traits that allow them to persist in agriculture’s novel and variable conditions . Previous work with the same data set demonstrated that bird functional diversity is lower in intensive mono cultures than in forest reserves or diversified agricultural systems, suggesting that agriculture can act as an ecological filter . We further explored this idea by analyzing whether land use affects the distribution of several functional traits thought to regulate bird responses to environmental disturbances . Indeed, granivores and birds with wider diet breadths and larger clutch sizes had higher colonization rates in agriculture . Additionally, compared with smaller species, larger birds experienced higher extirpation rates in intensive mono cultures but lower extirpation rates in diversified agricultural systems . Our results suggest that both agricultural expansion and intensification threaten evolutionarily distinct species, aligning with earlier findings of heightened global endangerment among birds from basal lineages . In contrast, species from recently diversifying clades appear best able to exploit agricultural habitats and may thus benefit from ongoing agricultural expansion. The persistence of some species from younger lineages cannot prevent the species losses, and concomitant declines in phylogenetic diversity,roll bench that accompany agricultural intensification. Ultimately, protected areas are essential for preserving evolutionary history.

Yet in the absence of a much-expanded global reserve system, prioritizing diversified agricultural systems over intensive mono cultures, especially surrounding reserves, provides a strategy for enhancing the conservation value of human-modified landscapes. About the same number of species persisted in diversified agricultural systems as in forest reserves, and, as a result, diversified agricultural systems maintained 1.5 times the phylogenetic diversity of intensive mono cultures. Shepherding biodiversity through the human pressures of the 21st century will require a shared vision for conservation and agriculture, one that simultaneously preserves species and ecosystem functions while also enhancing food production and human well-being.The air quality in California’s San Joaquin Valley has been a cause of concern for many years. In 2003 there was an increasing sense of urgency to do something about it. One reason is that by many measures it is some of the worst air in the country. In 2003, the counties contained in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District1 had the most unhealthy air days as measured by the federal eight-hour smog standard.The short-term one hour smog measure put the San Joaquin Valley in the second to worst category. The San Joaquin Valley is also “considered one of the worst places in the country for tiny particulate pollution” . In addition to the air quality, California’s longstanding exemption of agriculture from the Clean Air Act’s permitting requirements was under serious threat. On May 15, 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency settled a lawsuit with EarthJustice and other litigants that effectively ended the 63-year exemption. In order to ensure legislative action, the settlement stated, “If the state fails to revise its agricultural exemptions, increased pollution offset requirements will take effect on November 15, 2003, and California will lose its federal highway funding on May 15, 2004” .

California’s answer was SB 700, which was proposed by State Senator Dean Florez on February 21, 2003 and signed into law in September 22 of the same year. The legislation ended the state’s agricultural exemption to national air permits on January 1, 2004, and sought to reduce emissions from agricultural sources by creating a regulatory system of permits and stringent cleanup standards. These same agricultural sources would now have to apply for permits to cover both operations and the construction activities. SB 700 is an interesting combination of major policy change and status quo politics. On the one hand, it ended the agriculture industry’s exemption to air permits, imposed a permitting system for agricultural operations, and required stringent mitigation standards. On the other hand, agricultural stakeholders gained important concessions. Forty-nine amendments were attached to SB 700 that allowed agricultural interests ample consideration in shaping administrative rules and who/what would be covered under the permit system . They also received financial incentives for compliance and access to information on how to comply with the law. This examines the narratives surrounding SB 700 and their impact on its design. This leads to three main research questions: What are the important narratives making up the SB 700 policy discourse? What are the implications of these narratives for the design of SB 700? What are the implications of these narratives for policy theory and practitioners? In order to properly address the research questions, the paper is organized in the following manner. There is a brief description of the main elements of SB 700. This is followed by the data and methodology used for the analysis of SB 700 and a presentation of the theoretical framework for the paper.It also consists of a combination of Schneider and Ingram’s theory of policy design and Hajer’s discussion of story lines. After this comes a narrative analysis on the policy discourse surrounding SB 700. The analysis shows how various elements of policy design are linked to different policy narratives. The concluding section of the paper examines the important implications of the findings and discusses potential extensions of the research. On introducing his bill, Florez said its purpose was to end the agricultural exemption to national air permits and reduce emissions of air contaminants from agricultural sources.

While the design of SB 700 addresses these goals, the final version of the bill was not as stringent as originally written . The bill encountered strong opposition in the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee . Agricultural interests successfully argued that the regulations would be too tight and costly in terms of production and jobs , and SB 700 failed to pass the committee. The impasse necessitated negotiations between Senator Florez, Appropriations Committee members, environmental advocates, and agricultural industry representatives that produced important changes to the bill. The changes clarified the circumstances under which air districts would track pollution precursors such as ammonia, required consideration of costs for agriculture engine technology and the air districts when dealing with control measures, and extended the permit deadline for confined animal facilities, such as dairies, to allow completion of scientific studies . All told, the bill was amended 49 times before passing the Senate and Assembly . The amended version passed the Assembly 49 to 30 and the Senate by 24 to 14. The governor signed it on September 22, 2003. With the end of the exemption to national air permits, agricultural sources had to comply with both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act. The legislation provided the basic outline of this regulatory regime by defining what constitutes agricultural sources, as well as the level of allowable pollution. SB 700 established four main categories of agricultural sources: confined animal facilities ; internal combustion engines; major stationary sources; and sources otherwise not subject to district regulation. Agricultural sources emitting 50% of the major source threshold for a given pollutant would be required to obtain a permit from its local air district.2It now became the task of state and local air district officials to develop rules and detailed definitions of agricultural sources that would ensure compliance under the new regulatory framework. The California Air Resources Board was charged with defining what constitutes a “large” CAF for purposes of meeting the general permitting threshold. This required them to examine all available and relevant scientific information and “consider the emissions from CAFs and how those emissions affect attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards in air basins” . It is then the responsibility of the local air districts to adopt rules that require any CAFs meeting the state board’s definition of large to obtain permits from the district . This process does not establish a single rule governing mitigation measures for facilities falling under the “large” designation. Instead, it creates a case-by-case approach in which those applying for permits provide an inventory of emissions and a mitigation plan for reducing emissions to the extent feasible . This varies across air districts. For example, since the SJVAPCD is designated as “severe” non attainment for ozone,commercial greenhouse supplies the mitigation standard would be BACM. Air districts are to “make a good faith effort to minimize the adverse impacts of these rule making procedures” in terms of both feasibility and cost . Local air districts that were in “moderate” or “serious” non attainment of national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter as of January 1, 2004 were required to adopt regulations to reduce emissions from agricultural sources .The regulations were to address both “fugitive” and precursor emissions. Air districts were required to hold at least one public hearing to accept testimony on their proposed rule by September 1, 2004. The final rule was to be adopted on or before July 1, 2005 at a public hearing and be implemented by January 1, 2006. To aid those regulated under the new permit system, SB 700 created two additional instruments. The first is a mitigation clearinghouse. CAPCOA in consultation with CARB will create and maintain a database of mitigation measures or strategies available for agricultural sources. This allows for those seeking permits to view benchmarks and acceptable practices for reducing emissions. The second instrument is access to financial resources.

SB 700 would require the California Pollution Control Financing Authority to expand access to the Capital Access Loan Program for Small Businesses to include outreach to financial institutions that serve agricultural interests for the purpose of funding air pollution control measures . This would help to guarantee loans made for to purchase pollution control equipment. Schneider and Ingram argue that elements of policy design are political phenomena amenable to empirical analysis. In particular, “Data can be generated by the study of texts, such as legislative histories, statutes, guidelines, speeches, media coverage, and analysis of symbols contained therein” . The data used to analyze the policy design of SB 700 was gathered from several sources. The first is the legislative record for the bill. Since SB 700 was passed and signed into law by Governor Davis, material from the governor’s chaptered bill files are part of the database. In addition to the official record of the bill, newspaper articles and editorials concerning SB 700 were included for analysis. Searching the ProQuest newspaper database from February 21, 2003 to September 22, 2003 using the keyword “SB 700” yields 81 newspaper articles and editorials for use in the narrative analysis. Articles and editorials after this date are used to examine the dynamic relationship between narratives, policy tools, and agents and implementation structures in the implementation activities of SB 700. A special report entitled “Last Gasp” published in the Fresno Bee on December 15, 2002 is also included in the narrative analysis. While the report predates the introduction of SB 700, it is included because it is continually cited by the bill’s author and its supporters and opponents in the legislative materials. Its importance in shaping the debate over this bill warrants its inclusion. The specific form of discourse analysis used to analyze the texts of SB 700 will be Roe’s narrative policy analysis, which consists of two stages. The first is the disaggregation of the text into discrete problem statements, which contain the simplest assertions of causal relationships or sets of causal relationships that link problems to their source . The second stage requires the aggregation of all the problem statements across the entire “data set” or texts. This allows the researcher to see the pattern of commonly identified problems and causal relationships concerning the policy. It is these aggregated problem statements that are then identified as narratives . 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” .