Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of groundwater was still a problem in the valley, but other problems related
to water and agriculture had moved to the fore and diminished the impor-
tance and urgency of the nitrate problem.
9
Whereas at the beginning of
my research, both the regulatory agencies and the farm industry had been
worried about lawsuits and negative publicity stemming from the nitrate
contamination problem, these newer issues were now the focus of growers'
and regulators' worries. As a result, growers were still showing little interest
in the quick test system, and a grower survey conducted by a Monterey
County water resources agency in 2001 showed that the quick test was
rarely used as a management tool for regulating the use of fertilizers.
Although 78 percent of respondents claimed that they used some method
of testing to assess the amount of residual nitrogen in their soils, only 3
percent used the quick test. This suggested that most growers were using
slower laboratory-based testing, most likely only once per season, instead
of the continual management approach suggested by the quick test's pro-
moters. Further, more than half the growers said that they used private
consultants for advice on fertilizer use, including 50 percent of growers
who reported relying on consultants from the fertilizer dealers themselves
(MCWRA 2002).
In addition, the farm advisor who specialized in soil and water problems
in the valley had resigned, and a new farm advisor had been hired to work
on these issues. This new advisor had few hopes for the use of the quick
test as a method of reducing fertilizer use, claiming that growers were “not
comfortable with it” and felt it was too “low-tech” when compared with
the sophisticated systems they used on their valuable crops. In this sense,
the quick test system failed as an edge of change in at least two respects.
First, it seemed too simplistic and potentially unreliable to growers, whose
bottom line depended much more on the appearance and size of their
crops than on the consequences of fertilizers' leaching into the valley's
water supply. Second, the quick test no longer represented the cutting edge
politically. The advisor and others concerned about groundwater contami-
nation found it diffi cult to sell the quick test as a balance between over-
fertilization as crop insurance and more radical regulation from the state.
In the end, the “subtle” choice faced by growers was eliminated through
a shift in the defi nitions of local environmental problems, and mainte-
nance of the status quo became an easy choice.
