Easement Exchanges for Agricultural Conservation: A Case Study Under the Williamson Act in California

REFERENCES

1. 1. Alterman Rachelle

   . 1997. The challenge of farmland preservation. Journal of the American Planning Association 63(2): 220–243.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Bradshaw Ted,
   2. Muller Brian

   . 1998. Impacts of rapid urban growth on farmland conversion: Application of new regional land use policy models and geographical information systems. Rural Sociology 63(1): 1–25.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
3. 1. California Department of Conservation: Division of Land Resource Protection

   . 2006a. Williamson Act Fact Sheet. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/pubs/Documents/WA%20fact%20sheet%2006.pdf.
4. 1. California Department of Conservation: Division of Land Resource Protection

   . 2006b. Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program Fact Sheet. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/pubs/Documents/Ezmt_Exchange_Fact_Sheet_04.pdf.
5. 1. California Department of Conservation: Division of Land Resource Protection

   . 2006c. “Win-Win Project” Preserves Farmland, Allows City of Lathrop to Expand. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/news/2006%20news%20releases/Pages/nr200626_lathrop_easement_exchange.aspx, October 25, 2006.
6. 1. City of Lathrop

   . 2009. http://www.ci.lathrop.caus/about/.; accessed February 1, 2009.
7. 1. Confidential interview

   . 2007. Confidential interview by phone and by email with a key informant, who requested anonymity.
8. 1. Cronon William

   . 1992. A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative. Journal of American History 78(1): 1347–1376.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
9. 1. Daniels Thomas L.

   1991. The purchase of development rights. Journal of the American Planning Association 57(4): 421–431.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Daniels Thomas L.

    1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
11. 1. Daniels Tom,
    2. Lapping Mark

    . 2005. Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature 19(3): 316–329.

    OpenUrlAbstract
12. 1. Dresslar John

    . 1979. Agricultural land preservation in California: Time for a new view. Ecology Law Quarterly 8(2): 303.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
13. 1. Duane Tim,
    2. Gennet Sasha,
    3. Peterson Rachel

    . 2006. Agricultural conservation easements in the Central Valley: Nearterm challenges and opportunities. A research project for the Central Valley Farmland Trust, Boalt Hall School of Law,University of California, Berkeley.
14. 1. EDAW

    . 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan. Sacramento, CA. July.
15. 1. EDAW

    . 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan. Sacramento, CA. October.
16. 1. EDAW

    . 2005. Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Central Lathrop Specific Plan. Sacramento, CA. December.
17. 1. Fulton William,
    2. Shigley Paul

    . 2007. Guide to California Planning. 3rd ed. Pt. Arena, CA: Solano Press.
18. 1. Goodenough Richard

    . 1978. An approach to land-use control: The California land conservation act. Urban Studies 15(3): 289–297.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
19. 1. Haag Jerry

    . 2007. Telephone interview. November 26.
20. 1. Hamin Elisabeth M.

    2003. Mojave Lands: Interpretive Planning and the National Preserve. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
21. 1. Lakoff George

    . 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
22. 1. Landis John D.

    2001. CUF, CUF II, and CURBA: A family of spatially explicit urban growth and land use policy simulation models. In Planning Support Systems, eds. Brail Richard, Klosterman Richard. Redlands, California: ESRI Press.
23. 1. Landis John D.

    2002. Characterizing Urban Land Capacity: Alternative Approaches and Methodologies. In Land Market Monitoring for Urban Growth Management, ed. Knaap Gerritt. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
24. 1. Levy David C.,
    2. Lippman Jessica Owley

    . 2005. Preservation as mitigation under CEQA: Ho hum or uh-oh? Environmental Law News 14(1): 18–24.

    OpenUrl
25. 1. Martin Bill

    . 2007. Telephone interview with Executive Director, Central Valley Land Trust. December 3.
26. 1. McGurty Kathleen A.

    1997. The state of agricultural land preservation in California in 1997: Will the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program solve the problems inherent in the Williamson Act? San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 7(1): 135–136.

    OpenUrl
27. 1. Merenlender Adina,
    2. Huntsinger Lynn,
    3. Guthey Greig,
    4. Fairfax Sally K.

    2004. Land trusts and conservation easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology 18(1): 65–75.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Nelson Arthur C.

    1992. Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization. Journal of the American Planning Association 58(4): 467–488.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. O’Brien Kerry P.

    2001. California’s Farmland Security Zone: A new incentive for the preservation of existing farmland. San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 11(1): 135–154.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. O’Bryant Dennis

    . 2007. Telephone interview with California Department of Conservation. November 20.
31. 1. Onsted Jeffrey Alan

    . 2007. The effectiveness of the Williamson act: A spatial analysis. PhD diss. University of California, Santa Barbara.
32. 1. Osner George

    . 2007. Visit to Lathrop, California, and discussion with planning consultant to the city of Lathrop. October 25th.
33. 1. Parfrey Eric

    . 2007. Telephone interview with chair of Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club. December 14.
34. 1. Pidot Jeff

    . 2005. Reinventing Conservation Easements: A Critical Examination and Ideas for Reform. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
35. 1. Pincetl Stephanie S.

    2003. Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
36. 1. Raymond Leigh,
    2. Fairfax Sally K.

    2002. The “shift to privatization” in land conservation: A cautionary essay. Natural Resources Journal 42: 599–639.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
37. 1. Richland Communities

    . 2009. http://www.richlandcommunities.com/AboutUs.asp.
38. 1. Sokolow Alvin D.

    , ed. 1990. The Williamson Act: 25 Years of Land Conservation. The Resources Agency of California: Sacramento.
39. 1. Solomon Barry

    . 1984. Farmland protection: a case of quality not quantity. Land Use Policy 2: 357–366.

    OpenUrl
40. 1. Steinitz Carl

    . 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal 9(2): 136–143.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
41. 1. Taylor Clifton

    . 2007. Email interview with Director of Entitlements at Richland Planned Communities. November 21.
42. 1. Teitz Michael B.,
    2. Dietzel Charles,
    3. Fulton William

    . 2005. Urban Development Futures in the San Joaquin Valley. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
43. 1. Thigpen Daniel

    . 2006. Lathrop, developer make deal: 300 acres will be developed, 900 preserved. Stockton Record. October 26.
44. 1. United States Army Corps of Engineers

    . 2002. Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Comprehensive Study. Technical Studies Documentation Appendix E: Risk Analysis. United States Army Corps of Engineers: Sacramento District.
45. 1. Will Dale

    . 1999. The land conservation act at the 32 year mark: Enforcement, reform, and innovation. San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 9: 1–36.

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Wright John B.,
    2. Czerniak Robert J.

    2000. The rising importance of voluntary methods of land use control in planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 419–423.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text