1

CALIFORNIA FARMERS AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS:MOTIVATIONS, EXPERIENCES, AND PERCEPTIONS

IN THREE COUNTIESBy

Ellen Rilla and Alvin D. Sokolowwith the assistance of

Robin Kozloff and Cathy Lemp

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL ISSUES CENTERCalifornia Farmland & Open Space Policy Series

Research Paper #4December 2000

Research supported by the Great Valley Center under a grant from theCalifornia Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection

2

For information about ordering this publication, contact:

UC Agricultural Issues CenterUniversity of California

One Shields AvenueDavis, CA 95616

(530) 752-2320http://aic.ucdavis.edu

Printed in the United States of America©December 2000 by the Regents of the University of California

Agricultural Issues Center

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,without the written permission of the publisher and the authors.

The University of California prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person employed by orseeking employment with the University on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical ormental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age,sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (special disabled veteran, Vietnam-era veteran orany other veteran who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaignbadge has been authorized).

University Policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiriesregarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Staff PersonnelServices Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin, 6th Floor,Oakland, CA 94607-5200; (510) 987-0096.

Cover photograph courtesy of Marin Agricultural Land Trust.

3

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2. Landowners, Programs, and Counties.................................................................. 11

Chapter 3. Why Landowners Sell Easements: Cash, Family, and Preservation .................... 21

Chapter 4. Landowner Experiences ....................................................................................... 31

Chapter 5. The Policy Perspective: Views of Program Impact and Direction ....................... 36

Chapter 6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 48

References .............................................................................................................................. 49

Appendices: Landowner Interviews ....................................................................................... 49 Appendix A. Landowner Interviews - Phone Survey................................................... 49 Appendix B. In-Person Landowners Interviews - Original Owner ............................. 51 Appendix C. In-Person Landowner Interviews - Later Purchaser ............................... 54

Table of Content

4

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the California Farmland Conservancy Program of the California Department ofConservation, and the Great Valley Center for funding this study. Robin Kozloff and Cathy Lempdeserve special recognition for their assistance in interviewing landowners. Jeff Woled of the UCDavis Department of Human and Community Development and Sandra Fisher and Laurie Treacher ofthe UC Agricultural Issues Center handled the formatting and production of this report. MarciaKreith of the Agricultural Issues Center edited the final version.

We could not have developed or produced this report without the support and cooperation of the threeeasement programs: the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the Sonoma County AgriculturalPreservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD), and the Yolo Land Trust (YLT). Several pro-gram managers contributed greatly to the project by providing landowner names and other valuableinformation during the early stages of the project and reviewing a draft of this report. They were BobBerner, Executive Director of MALT; Lisa Bush, Conservation Specialist at MALT; Steve Sharpe,Acting Manager of SCAPOSD; David Hanson, former Manager of SCAPOSD; and Kathryn Kelly,Executive Director of YLT. Three anonymous reviewers also read the draft and provided usefulsuggestions.

And most importantly, many thanks to the 46 cooperating landowners who willingly shared theirexperiences and insights with us.

Ellen RillaCounty Director, Marin CountyUniversity of California Cooperative Extension

Alvin D. SokolowPublic Policy SpecialistHuman and Community DevelopmentUC Davis

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What motivates farmers to give up development rights and convey permanent conservation easementson their land? This report, the first in a series of three, examines the views and experiences of 46landowners with conservation easements on their properties in three northern California counties.Thirty-seven had sold such easements in recent years; the other nine owners had recently purchasedparcels with easements already in place.

These farmland parcels are located in two North Bay coastal counties, Marin and Sonoma, and inYolo County in the Central Valley. Collectively, these three counties contain a large share of theCalifornia farmland protected by conservation easements expressly for the purpose of allowingcontinued farming. The three programs are the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the SonomaCounty Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD), and the Yolo Land Trust(YLT). In large part, the three programs acquire easements to preserve commercial farmland in thepath of urbanization, as compared to the more traditional use of the technique to protect habitat,wetlands, forests, and other natural resource areas for their environmental qualities.

We surveyed the 46 landowners in phone and personal interviews in February-August, 1999, askingquestions about motivations, negotiations with land trusts, perceptions about program success andother experiences related to their conservation easement. Our findings are divided into the followingmajor areas.

Motivations

Farmland owners are motivated by a combination of short- and long-term reasons to sell easementson their properties. The short-term factors revolve largely around the benefits of getting a largeamount of cash at one time. The long-term reasons are more complex and often are rooted inpersonal beliefs about land preservation. We found that preservation for continued farming or openspace was the leading motivation for the 37 original sellers, with cash often seen as a mechanism forachieving preservation and family goals. Other findings:

• Many landowners commented on stewardship and landscape values and few were concernedabout easement perpetuity—indications of the preservation motivation.

• Personal attachment to the easement-protected parcels was another widely-held sentiment,with many respondents noting a long history of family ownership and the importance of theirfarms as home sites.

• Easement status was a decided advantage for most of the nine later purchasers, primarilybecause it reduced purchase prices.

Experiences

Landowners overall have very positive views of their easement-related experiences, extending from thesale negotiations to later contacts with the conservation organizations. A few identified particularproblems, mostly concerning the annual monitoring of uses on their parcels or specific deed restrictionsincluding limits on additional housing. Other findings:

• Negotiating the sales transaction with the conservation agency was generally a satisfactory

6

experience, although some landowners were critical of the length of the process, price, andavailable information.

• Sellers spent the cash on these purposes, in order of frequency: (1) non-farm uses, such asretirement income and savings; (2) farm investment; (3) estate settlement; (4) reduction offarm debt.

• Most comments about post-sale contacts concerned the yearly monitoring of parcels to ensurecompliance with easement terms. For some landowners, this process was an annoyance or amore serious intrusion on personal property rights. Others lauded the monitoring, seeing theinspections as helping them to become better land stewards.

Program Performance and Impact

The great majority of landowners said that the conservation programs—MALT, SCAPOSD, and theYLT—were successful in furthering their preservation purposes. Particular criticisms included: (1)excessive payments for easements; (2) placement of easements on some parcels that would not besubject to urban pressure; (3) doing little to assist the economic viability of local agriculture; (4)excessive bureaucracy; and (5) insufficient acquisition funds. Other findings:

• Asked about the compatibility of agricultural and open space preservation as purposes of theeasement programs, most landowners said they were complementary.

• Respondents identified the top priorities for acquiring easements were (1) location inrelation to urbanization, and (2) farm productivity.

• Suggestions for program improvements or other changes varied considerably and included:(1) expanding the representation of agricultural interests on the governing board; (2)simplifying negotiations; (3) increasing program funds; and (4) expanding educational andoutreach activities.

Program Recommendations

The report concludes with a series of recommendations to easement programs on strategies forevaluating landowner relations. They are: (1) clarify and expedite easement negotiations; (2) increaseinformation to later purchasers of easement-restricted parcels; (3) conduct parcel monitoring as acooperative process; and (4) involve landowners in a variety of conservation activities.

7

As a tool for the protection of farmland fromurbanization, conservation easementsincreasingly attract the interest of Californians.Without changing a property’s basic ownership,an easement prohibits urban development andconsequently blocks a change from agriculturalto more intensive land uses. To convey aneasement and accept such restrictions is anentirely voluntary action for an owner offarmland. While the landowner receives animmediate economic gain in cash or taxbenefits, he or she also loses permanently thedevelopment rights on the land; it can’t ever beconverted from agricultural or naturalconditions into more intensive uses.

What motivates farmland owners to take such amomentous step, one that limits all futureowners of the land? How do they weigh thebenefits and restrictions? In particular, how doeconomic, family, and preservationconsiderations come into play in a decision tosell development rights? And in years after theeasement transaction, what do landowners whogave up such rights say about their experiencesand perceptions of the conservation programsthat hold the easements?

What 46 farmland owners in northern Californiatold us about these and related topics is the focusof this study. All have conservation easements ontheir properties; 37 landowners had sold thedevelopment rights within the previous 16 years,while the other nine had purchased their land witheasements already in place. The properties arelocated in three counties–Marin, Sonoma, andYolo. The first two are North Bay coastalcounties, while Yolo is in the Central Valley.Collectively, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust(MALT), the Sonoma County AgriculturalPreservation and Open Space District(SCAPOSD), and the Yolo Land Trust (YLT) heldeasements on more than 54,000 acres of farmlandat the time of the research, in early 1999. (SeeFigures 1- 3 for easement locations.) MALT andSCAPOSD are the largest farmland easementprograms in California and among thelargest in the nation. YLT is the largest such

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION

program in the Central Valley in cropland acresprotected.

This survey of landowner motivations, views,and experiences is the first report from a largestudy of California’s experience with thefarmland easement technique that has beenunderway since late 1998. Additional reportswill follow from the two other components ofthe study: (1) the organization and performanceof California land trusts and other localconservation agencies that seek to acquireagricultural easements, and (2) the prospects forextensive use of the easement technique in theCentral Valley, California’s premier agriculturalregion. This research has been supported by theCalifornia Department of Conservation and theGreat Valley Center of Modesto.

We concentrate in this research on a particularversion of the conservation easementtechnique—its use in preserving commercialfarmland in the path of urbanization. This is afairly recent application of the technique, onethat has been regularly used in California sincethe mid-1980s, and elsewhere in the UnitedStates only since the 1970s. The more commonand traditional application puts easements onland for its environmental or natural qualities,such as wetlands, animal and plant habitat,riparian corridors, and scenic views. These twodifferent purposes, however, are not alwaysmutually exclusive in the motivations oflandowners and the priorities of conservationprograms; often easements are acquired both forcommercial farmland and environmental values.Thus several of the landowners surveyed in ourstudy said they wanted to see their parcelsprotected for open space and otherenvironmental purposes as well as for continuedfarming.

Research on Landowner Patterns Elsewhere

This California survey adds to a small butgrowing store of knowledge about conservationincentives and the behavior of farmland owners.At least three other published studies on this

8

topic have appeared in the last few years. Theyreport findings from landowner interviews inseveral northeastern states where easementprograms for farmland protection have a slightlylonger history than California’s brief experiencewith this technique. The other studies include:

• An American Farmland Trust (AFT)phone and in-person survey of 75participants in the MassachusettsAgricultural Preservation Restrictionprogram, which began to acquireeasements in 1977.1

• A mail survey of 161 Pennsylvania farmowners who were among the first toparticipate in that state’s AgriculturalLand Preservation program, sellingeasements in 1989-92.2

• A mail survey of 349 farmland owners inNew York, New Hampshire, and Mas-sachusetts, including original sellersof easements to state and local programsand later purchasers of easement-protected parcels.3

Although they differ in emphasis and scope,the three studies present similar findings inseveral respects. They show especially thatthe leading reason given by landowners forgiving up the development rights on theirproperties is to protect the land for continuedfarming. Four-fifths of the easement sellersin the AFT study of Massachusettslandowners, for example, listed this as amotivation. Less dominant motivations wereto retire debt, invest in the farm operation,

keep the land in the family for futuregenerations, and provide retirement income.All three studies explicitly note that financialincentives play a secondary role to the farmlandpreservation objective. The preservationmotivation, according to two of the threereports, involves landowners’ personalattachments to their parcels and stewardshipvalues.

Other findings that come from only one or twoof the studies are:

• Donors (providing “charitablecontributions”) of easements were more“altruistic” and more oriented towardstewardship values than sellers ofeasements. Sellers were more concernedthan donors about continuing familyownership (3-state study).

• By lowering the market value ofprotected properties, easements makefarmland more affordable to laterpurchasers. In Massachusetts this allowed anumber of young families to enter farmingas first-time landowners or toexpand their operations (AFTMassachusetts study).

• Landowners are quite satisfied with theireasement arrangements. Negative factorscited by respondents include difficulty ingetting local governments to lowerproperty tax assessments on protectedland, the appraisal and other costs ofcompleting an easement transaction, andless then expected tax benefits (AFTMassachusetts study; 3-state study).

• Two studies detail how landowners usedthe cash from the easement sale anddescribe later changes in farm operations.Reducing existing farm debt was the mostcommon use, with other uses includingsavings for retirement and other purposes,investment in the farm operation, andoff-farm business opportunities (AFTMassachusetts study; Pennsylvaniastudy).

1Robin L. Sherman, Suzanne Milshaw, Robert C. Wagner,and Julia Freedgood. 1998. Investing in the Future ofAgriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland ProtectionProgram and the Permanence Syndrome. AmericanFarmland Trust, Northhampton, MA.2Leigh J. Maynard, Timothy W. Kelsey, Stanford M.Lembeck, and John C. Becker. 1998. “Early experiencewith Pennsylvania’s agricultural conservation easementprogram,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(2),Second Quarter, 106-1123Paul Elconin and Valerie A. Luzadis. 1997. EvaluatingLandowner Satisfaction with Conservation Restrictions.SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry,Syracuse, NY.

9

Interestingly, two of these studies offer differentinterpretations of the long-term consequencesof placing easements on farmland. Accordingto the AFT study, the Massachusetts stateprogram has reduced for its farmer participantsthe “impermanence syndrome,” the tendency oflandowners to disinvest in their agriculturaloperations because of surrounding urbandevelopment.

Massachusett’s farmers with easements insteadhave become more confident about theagricultural future of their properties and haveexpanded their investments and increased theirstewardship activities.

“Many farmers told interviewers thatknowing the land would always beavailable for agriculture encouraged themto implement conservation practices,improve the management of their farms,reclaim abandoned fields, or repair oldbuildings.” AFT (p. 47)

The Pennsylvania study suggests a much lessoptimistic scenario in the longer term.Interpretations concentrate on the futureeconomic uncertainties produced bypermanently restricting farmland. Threeinterrelated consequences are projected: (1)While easements protect land use, they do notensure that the other elements necessary forviable farming will be present, includingprofitable markets and agricultural inputsuppliers. (2) If not economically viable, manyeasement-protected parcels are likely to becomeestates for “hobby farmers,” an open spacesubsidy for affluent persons. (3) Creating a“critical mass” of protected land throughcontiguous blocks of easement parcels can helpkeep land in productive farming, but thevoluntary nature of easement programs makes itdifficult to achieve this.

Research Questions and Report Outline

We cover many of these same themes in thisCalifornia survey. Three major sets ofquestions guided our interviews with the 46landowners:

1. Why do landowners give up theirdevelopment rights? We examine the relativeemphases and mix of economic, family, andpreservation reasons for selling easements. Towhat extent are landowners concerned about thepermanent nature of easements? How dopersonal circumstances relate to sale decisions?How does the easement status affect thedecisions of later purchasers?

2. What were the experiences of landowners intheir easement transactions and in latercontacts with the easement program? Howsatisfied are they with these arrangements andwhat specific problems do they now identify?In particular, we describe landownerrecollections about the transaction process(negotiations over price and restrictions, timing,information). How did they use the cash fromthe sale? And what do they say about post-salecontacts with the easement program, especiallythe parcel monitoring process?

3. What do landowners say about theperformance and impact of the conservationprograms that hold the easements on theirparcels? This question taps the community andpolicy context of landowner behavior andperspectives, and their unique ability tocomment on program successes andshortcomings. How do landowners comparethe easement technique with other land usetools employed locally? What do they sayabout the relative merits of farmland versusopen space protection and easementacquisitions priorities? Finally, what do theysuggest as to program changes?

Our summary and analysis of landownerresponses to these questions frame the majorpart of this report. Following a description inChapter 2 of the landowner sample and thethree local easement programs and theircounties, chapters 3, 4, and 5 discuss landownermotivations, experiences, and policy views.The final chapter of the report offers severalrecommendations for program-landownerrelations.

10

Methods

Most of the 46 landowners who are the subjectsof this research were identified in response toletters sent in early 1999 to all participants inthe easement programs operated by MALT andthe SCAPOSD. The sample landowners werethose who responded positively to the letterssent by the UC Cooperative Extension officesin Marin and Sonoma counties explaining theproject and asking for their participation. Thenames and addresses of current landowners, aswell as other information, were originallyprovided to the project by MALT andSCAPOSD staff. The original lists did notmake a distinction between landowners whohad sold easements and later purchasers, andconsequently, the final sample included bothkinds of respondents. Originally the survey wasconfined to the 40 landowners in Marin andSonoma counties, both North Bay coastal areaswho responded positively to our initial letters.The six Yolo landowners, identified by acomplete list of participating landownersprovided by the YLT, were added to the projectat a later stage to provide a modest expansion ofthe sample to an inland region. Chapter 2describes in some detail the characteristics ofthe landowner sample.

Phone interviews, ranging in length from 15minutes to more than an hour, were conductedwith all but one of the 46 landowners. Moredetailed interviews followed with 17 of thelandowners, either in person or by phone. (Theone person who was not originally contacted byphone was interviewed in a personal session.)In some cases, a one-hour phone sessioncovered the questions prepared for both theoriginal phone and later follow up interviews.All interviews were conducted betweenFebruary and August, 1999. The longerinterviews (1-2 hours), including all in personsessions, were taped and later transcribed foranalysis.

Compared to the three studies of easementparticipants in other states described above, weplaced more emphasis on qualitative thanquantitative data in interviewing and analysis.Most of the questions we employed were open-

ended, encouraging respondents to elaborateand extend their comments about motivations,program experiences, and program views.While this report does tabulate landownerresponses in a number of categories, partly tonote overall trends and differences betweencounties, it devotes more attention to thedetailed substance of landowner responses.General points are often illustrated by selectexcerpts from individual interview reports. Amajor reason for this approach is the relativelysmall number of participants overall in the threeCalifornia programs. As well, we wanted to digmore deeply into landowner motivations,experiences, and views than a standardquestionnaire typically allows. Appendix Apresents the two principal sets of questions usedin the interviews.

11

We examine in some detail in this chapter thecharacteristics of the sample landowners andparcels, the three conservation programs, andtheir counties.

Sample Landowners and Parcels

The 46 landowners own an average of 634 acresof easement-restricted land, somewhat largerthan the 530-acre average for all 105participants in the three programs. The largestis a cattle ranch of almost 8,000 acres inSonoma County. The smallest, also in Sonoma,is a 14 acre parcel that is leased for hay cutting.We collected from each landowner informationabout ownership, residence, farm operations,family history, and agricultural commodities.

Here are the pertinent characteristics of theentire sample, as drawn from Table 2:

Chapter 2LANDOWNERS, PROGRAMS, AND COUNTIES

The 46 interviewees with easements on theirproperties participate in three different landconservation programs located in three northernCalifornia counties. As Table 1 shows, the 46were about 44 percent of the total of 105landowners participating in the Marin, Sonoma,and Yolo programs as of early 1999. Theirparcels represented a majority (55%) of the53,000 total easement acres held by the threeprograms at that time.

These sample proportions vary among the threecounties. Our sample for Yolo County isvirtually identical to the small program’s totals— 6 of the 7 participating landowners and 99.5percent of all 1,402 easement acres. TheSonoma sample has only 37 percent of totalprogram landowners, but they represent two-thirds of all easement acres. The Marin sampleincludes a slight majority of total programlandowners and almost 38 percent of easementacres.

Table 1. STUDY SAMPLE AS COMPARED TO PROGRAM TOTALS1

Marin Sonoma Open Yolo Land TotalLand Trust Space District Trust

LANDOWNERS WITHEASEMENTSProgram Total 312 673 74 105Study Sample 15 25 6 46(51.7%) (37.3%) (85.7%) (43.8%)

EASEMENT ACRESProgram Total 26,050 26,653 1,402 53,039Study Sample 9,862 17,933 1,395 29,190(37.9 %) (67.3%) (99.5%) (55.0% )

AVERAGE ACRES PERLANDOWNERProgram Total 879.3 408.3 200.2 530.4Study Sample 657.5 717.3 232.5 634.6

1Program totals as of February 1999.2Representing 36 separate easement transactions.3Does not include in fee purchases.4Representing 1 2 separate easement transactions.

12

• Most of the 46 landowners werepersonally involved in the transactionsthat transferred the easements on theirparcels. However, nine current (at thetime of the interviews) landownershad purchased their properties after theeasement sales. While that is only a fifth ofthe total sample, it is still a significantnumber considering the short history ofonly 16 years since the earliest transaction(in Marin County).

• Three-fifths of the landowners reside ontheir easement-restricted parcels.

• While roughly two-thirds arepersonally involved in operating theirfarm parcels (and other agricultural land insome cases), including 19 full-time and 10part-time farmers, 17 landowners are notdirectly involved in agriculture. Ten ofthese landowners lease their land forfarming to others, while the other 7 (all inSonoma County) own non-agriculturalparcels . Among the part-time operators,one Marin and two Sonoma famersidentified themselves as “retired.”

• Family ownership histories varyconsiderably. A little less than half of ourinterviewees represent at least the secondgeneration in their families to own theland. At the other end of the scale, 11persons are new owners, having purchasedtheir parcels within the previous 10 years.

• Diverse commodities are produced on the39 parcels in active agriculture - - dairyproducts, cattle, sheep, wine grapes, poultryand row and tree crops. Most of the parcelsare devoted to milk and animal production.

Landowner and parcel characteristics for thesample differ considerably among the threeprograms, reflecting variations in programpriorities and the underlying agriculturalactivities of the three counties:

(1) MarinCounty. Landowners in MarinCounty are the most closely connected to theireasement parcels, in terms of residence, farm

operations, and family involvement and history.As Table 2 indicates, all reside on theireasement parcels, slight majorities are full-timefarmers or have other family members involvedin the agricultural operation, and familyownership for most extends back at least twogenerations. Parcels for six of the landownershave been in family hands since the 19th

century. Dairy and cattle are the dominantagricultural operations for the sample parcels inMarin.

(2) Sonoma County. The sample pattern inSonoma County is skewed by the non-agricultural status of a little more than one-quarter of the 25 easements, parcels that wererestricted for scenic and other environmentalpurposes. Among the 18 agricultural parcels,active farmers and long family ownership aredominant traits, although not to the same degreeas in Marin. Only slightly more than half of thesample landowners in Sonoma reside on theireasement properties. Dairy and beef are alsothe principal farm commodities grown on the18 parcels in Sonoma that are in activeagricultural use, but farm operations here are abit more diverse than in Marin. They includetwo vineyards, an apple orchard, a Christmastree lot, and a turkey operation.

(3) Yolo County. The relatively small numberof landowners in Yolo County served by theland trust have the weakest connections to theireasement parcels in the entire sample. Four ofthe six purchased the parcels after theeasements were sold–all within the last fouryears. Only one landowner in the Yolo grouphas a family history on the easement parcel thatgoes back more than a generation and only onereports the involvement in the farm operation ofother family members. None reside on theirparcels and half are not directly involved in thefarm operations. As compared to the dairy andcattle operations that are dominant in Marin andSonoma, the Yolo farm parcels are usedexclusively for crop production–one vineyardand several parcels with a mixture ofcommodities, principally processing tomatoes,alfalfa, and wheat.

13

Table 2. SAMPLE LANDOWNER AND PARCEL CHARACTERISTICS

Marin Sonoma County Yolo Land TotalAgricultural Ag. Preservation TrustLand Trust & Open Space

District

Number of 15 25 6 46Sample Landowners

OWNER AT TIME OF 12 23 2 37EASEMENT SALELater Purchaser 3 2 4 9

RESIDE ONEASEMENT? Yes (No) 15 (0) 13 (12) 0 (6) 28 (18)

FARM OPERATORSTATUS Full-time 8 8 3 19 Part-time 4 6 - 10 Not involved in operation 3 4 3 10 Parcel not in agriculture - 7 - 7

LANDOWNERS WITH 8 7 1 16OTHER FAMILYMEMBERS INVOLVEDIN OPERATION

FAMILY OWNERSHIP At least 2 generations 11 10 1 22 Same generation, 20+ years 2 5 - 7 10-20 years 2 3 1 6 0-10 years - 7 4 11

PRINCIPALCOMMODITIES Dairy, silage 9 5 - 14 Cattle, sheep 5 7 - 12 Grapes 1 2 1 4 Row Crops - - 5 5 Tree crops - 3 - 3 Poultry - 1 - 1 Parcel presently - 7 - 7 not in agriculture

Source: landowner interviews.

14

Figure 1. MarinCounty. Conservation easements held by MALT

15

Figure 2. Sonoma County. Conservation easements held by SCAPOSD

16

Figure 3. Yolo County. Conservation easements held by YLT

17

Three Conservation Programs

The 46 landowners at the center of this studyare participants in three of the most activeeasement programs in California that focus onthe preservation of land for continuingagricultural use (Table 3). Each is countywidein scope. They are relatively new programs,reflecting the recent adoption in California ofthe conservation easement technique forfarmland preservation, rather than to its moretraditional applications for environmentalpurposes. The oldest of the three programs wasestablished 20 years ago, while the other twohave been active only in the past decade.

The programs in our study represent twodifferent types of organizations. Those in Marinand Yolo counties are administered by landtrusts, non-profit organizations chartered understate law to engage in conservation activities.Although private entities, their tax-exemptstatus allows them to accept easements onagricultural or other resource lands for a publicpurpose: protection in perpetuity from urbandevelopment, either by sale or donation fromlandowners.

In contrast, the Sonoma County easementprogram is run by a public agency, an openspace district that is an arm of countygovernment. The Marin and Yolo land trusts

PROGRAMTrust

FORM OFNon-profit Non-prof it

YEAR FORMED 1980 1988

YEAR FIRST 1983 1992 1995EASEMENTACQUIRED

ACRES IN 26,000 26,653 1,402EASEMENTS1

NUMBER OF 392 67 123

1

SOURCES OFFUNDING

1

2

3

Table 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE EASEMENT PROGRAMS

Sonoma AgriculturalPreservation &Open Space District

Yolo Land

TRANSACTIONS

Local government agency;a special district controlledby county government

1990—countywidevoter approval

City mitigation;state easementprogram;federal funds

State Bonds—Prop. 70;property taxes;foundation grants

Voter-approved,quarter-centsales tax

Representing 35 landowners, several with multiple transactionsRepresenting 7 landowners, several with multiple transactions

Marin Agricultural Land Trust

Sources: Program records

As of February 1999

and trustland trustORGANIZATION

18

are governed by self-appointed, citizen boardsof directors. The Sonoma district is ultimatelygoverned by that county’s elected Board ofSupervisors, but it also reports to the SonomaCounty Open Space Authority, a five-memberboard appointed by the Supervisors. TheAuthority collects the sales tax and approvesexpenditures for district acquisitions andoperations.

The creation of Sonoma County’s open spacedistrict was the result of favorable action bythat county’s voters in 1990, who also approveda quarter cent sales increase to fund thedistrict’s operations. The Sonoma Board ofSupervisors had put both measures on the ballotas the result of a general plan update that calledfor an agricultural easement program with anemphasis on using protected farmland to formgreenbelts (“community separators”) betweenexpanding cities.

The Marin Agricultural Land Trust and the YoloLand Trust were created in 1980 and 1988,respectively. Each was formed by a localcoalition of farmers and environmentalistsconcerned about maintaining agriculturaloperations in the face of urbanization. MALThas the distinction of being the first land trust inthe United States organized specifically forfarmland preservation. The creation of SonomaCounty’s open space district was the result offavorable action by that county’s voters in 1990,who also approved a quarter cent sales increaseto fund the district’s operations. The SonomaBoard of Supervisors had put both measures onthe ballot as the result of a general plan updatethat called for an agricultural easement programwith an emphasis on using protected farmlandto form greenbelts (“community separators”)between expanding cities.

In addition, Marin and Sonoma counties haveother land conservation programs withprimarily nonagricultural emphases. The MarinCounty Open Space District, (MCOSD) formedin 1972 with voter approval of a property taxfor open space acquisitions, concentrates onpreserving recreational and wildlife lands in thecounty’s eastern, urban corridor. The Sonoma

Land Trust (SLT) was organized in 1975, andemphasizes acquisitions of scenic and habitatparcels. As of early 1999, the MCOSD hadacquired more than 12,000 acres and the SLThad acquired more than 10,000 acres. Bothprograms make extensive use of fee purchasesas well as easement acquisitions, and the SLTalso relies heavily on easement donations.

Easement Activities

Combined, the agricultural preserve programsin the three counties had acquired easements ona total of more than 53,000 acres by early 1999.These easements are on parcels owned by 105landowners and were acquired in 115 separatetransactions. (Since that time all threeprograms have added to their holdings, with atotal of about 60,000 easement acresaccumulated by fall 2000.) Figures 1-3 mapthe easements in the three counties.

The MALT and SCAPOSD programs, withmore than 26,000 acres apiece in 1999, areamong the five top local agricultural easementprograms in the nation in the number ofeasement acres acquired, competing withcounty government programs in several easternstates. With less than five years of easementacquisitions to date, the Yolo Land Trust has amuch smaller acreage accumulation than thetwo coastal programs. But it is the most activeagricultural easement program in inlandCalifornia in terms of cropland acres ineasement and total easement transactions.

The three California programs in theiroperations differ in two major respects–in theagricultural characteristics of the easementsacquired and in the source and continuity offunding sources. Virtually all of MALT’seasements are on lands used for raising dairycows and beef cattle in the county’s western,non-urbanized area. The SCAPOSD easementsare more varied in farm commodities, includingvineyards and other cropland as well as dairyand beef cattle lands, but also include parcelsthat serve scenic and other nonagriculturalpreservation purposes. All of the easementsacquired by the Yolo Land Trust to date have

19

been on cropland, with some easement parcelsalso serving secondary riparian and habitatpreservation purposes.

The SCAPOSD puts more emphasis onconserving land that is not primarily devoted toagricultural production than the other twoprograms. About half of its easement acreshave the designation of “forever wild” parcels,generally hillside, mountain, and wetland areasprotected for scenic and other environmentalpurposes. The SCAPOSD also has purchasedin fee some rural lands, generally for futurepublic recreation uses.

Fund Sources

The revenues supporting the easement activitiesof the three programs come from a variety ofstate, local, and private sources. MALT’s firsteasements were funded by the state CoastalConservancy and the San Francisco Foundation(Buck Trust). Later purchases used state fundsfor preservation activities in coastal areas, aresult of statewide voter approval of Proposition70 in 1988, together with foundation support.With the depletion of Proposition 70 money, theacquisition pace dropped off substantially afterthe early 1990s. Two Marin county ballotproposals to earmark a sales tax increase forfurther acquisitions, similar to Sonoma’sprogram, did not achieve the required two-thirds approval in 1992 and 1996, although bothreceived majority support. However, MALT’sfunding picture brightened considerably in 1999with the receipt of a $2.5 million challengegrant from a foundation. The grant wasintended to match revenues from other sources.

The envy of easement programs everywhere,the Sonoma open space district has the moststable funding source of any local conservationorganization in California–the 20-year, quartercent sales tax approved by voters when thedistrict was created in 1990. Generating about$13.5 million a year, this revenue is responsiblefor the rapid pace of the district’s acquisitions,averaging 4,000 acres per year since the firsteasement in 1992. As of early 2000, thedistrict had spent about $50 million onacquisitions.

The fiscal fortunes of the Yolo Land Trust havebeen closely linked to the growth managementpolicies of the city of Davis. In 1995 Davisbecame the first California city (and probablythe first in the nation) to require that thefarmland conversions resulting from new urbandevelopment coming into the city be mitigatedon an equal acreage basis by placing easementson agricultural parcels elsewhere within thegeneral plan area. YLT is the agency thatacquires and manages the easements, workingclosely with the city. The land trust also hasbeen aggressive in seeking funds from othersources for other easements, including theCalifornia Farmland Conservancy Program(formerly the Agricultural Land StewardshipProgram). Easements acquired through Davismitigations represented a little more than a thirdof the 1900 total easement acres held by theYLT in early 1999.

Almost all of the easements acquired so far bythe three programs have involved directcompensation to the landowners. MALT hasreceived two easements acquired by a charitablefoundation on Marin agricultural land and oneas the result of a condition in a countydevelopment approval. A few of the SCAPOSDacquisitions have involved both cash andcontributions, in which a portion of atransaction’s value is accepted as a charitabledonation.

County Characteristics

As Table 4 shows, the three counties areexperiencing population increases at a steady orrapid rate. The most rapid growth is inSonoma, with a projected population of morethan 600,000 by 2020. Agriculturalcharacteristics vary widely among the threecounties. Marin has the smallest farm sectorsof the three counties, one that is concentratedon milk and cattle production. In SonomaCounty, wine grapes are rapidly becoming thedominant commodity. Yolo’s agriculturaleconomy is the most varied of the three, withprocessing tomatoes, winegrape, seed crops,rice, orchards, and field corn as major crops.

20

Table 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE COUNTIES

Marin Sonoma Yolo

ESTIMATED POPULATION, 1999 248,000 443,700 158,800

% POPULATION INCREASE, 1980-99 11.2 % 47.5 % 39.5 %

PROJECTED POPULATION, 2020 269,000 614,000 225,000

FARM MARKET VALUE, 1998 $56.1 $453.5 $277.2million million million

LEADING FARM milk, grapes,milk,

processingCOMMODITIES cattle

livestock,tomatoes,

poultry,grapes,

vegetablesalfalfa,rice,corn,walnuts,almonds

TOTAL FARM ACRES, 19981 159,000 610,000 557,000CROPLAND ACRES 67,000 169,000 414,000

DECREASE IN TOTAL - 6,081 - 17,869 - 10,890FARM ACRES, 1984-982

INCREASE IN TOTAL + 2,669 + 10,011 + 5, 022URBAN ACRES, 1984-982

11996 for Sonoma County21984-96 for Sonoma County

Sources: California Department of Finance (population data); County Agricultural Commissioners (marketvalue and crop data); California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(acreage data).

21

Owners of farmland, we find in this study, aremotivated by a combination of short-term andlong- term reasons to sell easements on theirproperties. The short-term factors revolvelargely around the benefits of getting a largeamount of cash at one time. The long-termmotivations are more complex and often arerooted in personal beliefs about landpreservation. Each easement transaction is aunique and highly personal event–driven byindividual circumstances of family history,current family and economic situation, farmingoperation, and personal values.

In this chapter we concentrate primarily on thestories and explanations of the 37 landownerswho were the original easement grantors. Onesection of the chapter summarizes the stories ofthe nine “second generation” landowners, thosewho bought parcels with easements already onthem.

Discrete Motivations

Seven discrete reasons were given by the 37landowners in responding to a question aboutwhy they restricted the use of their property byselling an easement (Table 5). Landowners inmost cases offered more than one reason.Described and listed in order of frequency, theyare:

(1) Preserve land for farming–17 comments.Landowners who gave this reason wanted theirparcels protected from urban development inthe long term; several reported that they hadbeen contacted in recent times by potentialdevelopers or real estate brokers interested indevelopment prospects. It was important formany to take a stand against the steady andirreversible trend of conversions around them:

“...preserving the land in agriculture soit will remain in agriculture. InSonoma County, we’re losing more andmore agricultural land every day and

we’re not able to put new land intoagriculture. It’s going to be gone. Youdon’t go in and tear down houses andput agriculture back in.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/30/99

(2) Cash for non-farm use–15 comments. Thesecond most-cited reason was to obtain cash forpersonal or family use for such purposes as asource of retirement income, setting the moneyaside as a personal investment, or building ahouse for the easement seller or members of thefamily. Noted one landowner:

“We didn’t have any debt on theproperty...We looked at the easement interms of the money it would bring. Ihaven’t done anything more with it thandraw interest. It’s a possible long-terminvestment gain or maybe houses forthe children.”-Marin landowner, 5/3/99

(3) Pass the land to the next generation–10comments. Several landowners talked aboutthe need to facilitate an intergenerationaltransfer without emphasizing the specifics of anestate issue (see below). The cash from theeasement sale could help the younger familymembers purchase the parcel from the oldergeneration or prepare the way for the transitionby paying down existing farm debt orimproving the farm operation:

“I want to keep all my property inagriculture. I want to be able to givethis all to my kids someday and say, thisis the legacy we have for you and this iswhat you can continue on with. I have areally big desire to keep it all infarming.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/29/99

(4) Cash to invest in farm operation–10comments. The money from the easement salecould be used to expand and make the operation

Chapter 3WHY LANDOWNERS SELL EASEMENTS:

CASH, FAMILY, AND PRESERVATION

22

more efficient, either by purchasing more landfor crop production or animal feed or to investin equipment and facilities:

“...I saw it as a business opportunity.Because I don’t plan on doing anythingwith this land other than dairy.”-Marin landowner, 3/23/99

(5) Settle an estate problem–9 comments.Some landowners wanted to use an easementsale to resolve the financial difficulties ofretaining the farm parcel in the hands of theowner’s family, either after the death of theowner or to ease the way for a later transfer ofthe parcel. The cash provided by an easementsale could be applied to the payment of estatetaxes or allow one person in a multiple-ownership situation to buy out the interests ofother family members, thus consolidatingownership and easing a later estate problem. Inthe few cases in which a part of the easementtransaction involved a charitable contributionby the owner, the estate tax benefits thus

provided were also an important economicbenefit:

“The price of preservation is high forthose who retain ownership of the land.A big problem we face is inheritancetax. The land has escalated in valueway beyond what we’re able to pay. I’mstuck in this mode. I’m 60 years oldand in a position to be both inheriting itand passing it on. I would have to sellthe farm and that’s the last thing I wantto do.”-Marin landowner, 3/2/99

(6) Cash to reduce farm debt–9 comments.Active farmers and ranchers frequently areheavy users of credit, whether to improve theiragricultural facilities or support annualoperational costs. Paying off a large debt wasan important motivation for a few landowners:

“I was giving up the ability to subdivideit someday but I had an immediate

Table 5. MOTIVATIONS CITED BY LANDOWNERS FOR SELLING EASEMENTS(Multiple responses)

Motivation Marin % Sonoma % Yolo % Total %

Preserve land for 7 58% 8 35% 2 100% 17 46%for farming

Cash for non-farm use 7 58% 8 35% — 15 41%

Pass the land to 7 58% 3 13% — 10 27%the next generation

Cash to invest in 4 33% 4 17% 2 100% 10 27%farm operations

Settle an estate problem 3 25% 6 26% — 9 24%

Cash to reduce farm debt 3 25% 5 22% 1 50% 9 24%

Preserve the land for — 8 35% — 8 22%open space

Number of landowners 12 23 2 37responding

3-County

23

financial need to retire a huge debt loadand the sale took care of that situation.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

(7) Preserve the land for open space–8comments. Like the most frequentlymentioned motivation for retaining aparcel in farming, this reason concernsthe importance of long-term landpreservation–but more for a parcel’sbeauty, recreational, or environmentalvalues:

“There’s an awful lot of good to be hadby being able to walk in the woods. Ithink we have a wonderful place here.You can get out of Paris and be in ruralcommunities. All through Europe youcan do that and they have a heavierpopulation density. I want to make surethat 100 years from now we can havethat same feel here.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/13/99

Stated motivations differed somewhat betweenMarin and Sonoma counties, as Table 5 shows.Proportionately more Marin than Sonomalandowners who sold easements mentionedfarm preservation, cash for non-farm use, inter-generational transfer, and farm investmentfactors. Only Sonoma respondents, on the otherhand, cited open space preservation as amotivation. The estate factor was equallyimportant in the two counties. Only two Yololandowners in the sample were originaleasement sellers, and both cited farmpreservation and farm investment reasons.

Multiple and Interlocking Motivations:Preservation, Cash, and Family

There are obvious similarities and overlapsamong these seven reasons for sellingeasements. The seven factors are easilycombined into just three major types ofmotivation:

(1) to preserve land (for farming or openspace);

(2) to serve family needs (estate resolution or transfer to the next generation); and(3) to obtain cash (for non-farm purposes, to invest in farm operations, or to reduce farm debt).

Counting the number of landowners who citedreasons in each major category, landpreservation ranks as the top motivation(mentioned by 27 respondents). It is followedby cash (mentioned by 24) and family (18mentions) motivations.

Such a simple ranking may be misleading, sinceonly one-third of the landowners gave reasonsthat fit into a single category, including fiverespondents apiece who mentioned only cash orpreservation reasons, and two who cited onlyfamily factors. A few of the landowners whocited just the cash benefits noted that they hadno other options for realizing a major economicgain from their land because the possibility ofselling for residential or commercialdevelopment had been eliminated by county(especially in Marin) land use restrictions.

The other 25 landowners, two-thirds of the total,had multiple objectives in mind when sellingtheir easements. Their stated motivationsgenerated these combinations:

Preservation, cash, family (all three motivations)—7 landownersPreservation and cash—9Preservation and family—6Cash and family—3

Economics and other factors are closelyinterconnected in these combinations. Clearlythe cash involved was substantial. For givingup their development rights, landowners in thethree counties typically received at least severalhundred thousand dollars apiece and more thanone million dollars in a few cases. Yet for mostof the 37 respondents in this sample, the cashwas only a means for accomplishing certainfamily or preservation. One Sonoma landowneroffered this interpretation:

24

“I doubt that people who participate inthe SCAPOSD or MALT do it forpurely economic reasons. They have towant to stay in agriculture. It makesless sense from a purely economicstandpoint.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/22/99

Many landowners explained how the immediateinfusion of cash enabled them to set things rightfor the future, either in permitting them tocontinue in farming or provide a smoothtransfer of the agricultural operation andownership to the next generation. Theimmediate goal for some was to overcome afragmented family ownership that madecontinued farming uncertain. Thus, in onesituation the farm operator used the proceedsfrom the easement sale to secure full control ofthe land by buying out the ownership shares ofhis siblings. The land had been in a family trustand the siblings were not interested incontinued farming but wanted the profits thatcould be achieved by selling for development.

In other cases the cash helped to facilitate aplanned intergenerational transfer, byimproving the financial status of the farmoperation and thus reducing the burden for thenext owners. In such circumstances cash couldbe applied to reducing current farm debt or toexpanding and improving the operation to makeit more productive and efficient.

Even when the motivation was to obtain cashfor non-farm purposes, it often served a familyor land succession purpose, such as buying ahouse for a family member on the easement or anearby parcel and helping the currentlandowner to plan for retirement. The cashhelped one Marin landowner’s farm operationand family in several ways:

“We took the money for a number ofreasons. Certainly one was economicbecause we had a big mortgage that wewanted to reduce. We also wanted todiversify and improve our operation,make improvements in the dairy andbuild a processing plant. And the thirdreason was we needed to do something

about our estate. We wanted to make itequitable among the children. It madea whole lot of things possible for us.”-Marin landowner, 2/11/99

The Emphasis on Preservation

It is difficult to separate family factors from aland preservation motivation. Both reasons forselling an easement address the long-termfuture of the land. Land preservation, in fact,seemed to be an even more basic and importantmotivation for most of the 37 landowners thanfamily considerations. The easementrepresented for some landowners a gift toposterity, one that could be enjoyed by all andnot just future owners.

Keep in farming. We have an indication ofpreservationist values in the responses to ourquestion, “How important is it to you that yourland remain in farming in the future?” Twenty-seven landowners (13 in Marin, 12 in Sonoma,2 in Yolo) replied that this was important or“very” important to them. Only fiverespondents (1 in Marin, 4 in Sonoma) wereambiguous about this point or said it made nodifference to them. “After I go I don’t care thatmuch what happens to the property,” said oneSonoma landowner (4/2/99).

But much more common was the observation,“I would hate to see houses on it.” A sense ofstewardship was also frequently mentioned,illustrated by recollections of the hard workdevoted in the past to improving the land forfarming or protecting features of the naturallandscape:

“There are all these trees here. Wecould have cut them down in ‘81. Butwe didn’t, we farmed around them andkept them because they are a part of thebeauty of the land.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/30/99

Other landowners expressed similar views,combining elements of farm stewardship,beauty of the landscape, and personal history intheir support of long-term preservation:

25

“I would like to see it stay inagriculture. I like the rural life. I grewup here. I don’t like houses going up allaround me. The people that come infrom the outside don’t understandagriculture. They want the freedom butnot the responsibility of living in thecountry.”-Marin landowner, 2/22/99

“It’s important to me to have openspace. I don’t like subdivisions anddevelopment. If it were parceled out itwould be destroyed. The land should beused for farming. Keeping big parcelsis a big part of that.”–Marin landowner, 2/24/99

“The ranch was something that I had puttogether over the years. I wanted it toremain in productive agriculture, nothouses.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/1/99

Perpetuity. Other evidence of the stronglypreservationist motivations of most of oureasement sellers is seen in how few raisedconcerns about the permanence of their deedrestrictions. Perpetuity was discussed by 23 ofthe 37 landowners who had sold easements,either in response to a specific question aboutwhether it was a concern at the time of thetransaction or in other comments about theadvantages and disadvantages of the sale.Nineteen landowners (8 in Marin, 9 in Sonoma,and 2 in Yolo) explicitly said it was not aconcern or problem. (It was probably not aconcern also for another 5 landowners who,while not discussing specifically the perpetuityaspect, did emphasize the importance ofretaining their land in agricultural use or in anatural state.) Only 5 landowners (4 in Marin,1 in Sonoma) expressed some discomfort withthe permanence of their easements.

For many landowners, perpetuity in fact was adefinite advantage and an integral part of themotivation for selling the easement. “Wewanted perpetuity. We wanted to save it forfuture generations,” emphasized one Sonoma

landowner (4/13/99), referring to the openspace and scenic attributes of his property. AMarin landowner and dairy operator said:

“That (perpetuity) is exactly what wewanted. And I told the children, even ifwe don’t give you money, we give yousomething that’s really worthwhile.Even it has to be sold eventually, it’sthat you’re attached to that piece ofland that’s so beautiful. And it won’tbe developed ever. That’s moreimportant than anything else.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

Taking perhaps a shorter term view of theireasements, several other landowners said theydid not regard perpetuity as a problem becausethey envisioned that their farm operationswould continue to be successful for some timeand would be passed on to future generations.

What were the objections to perpetuity? Mostlythey were mildly-expressed uncertainties aboutthe continuing viability and profitability offarming and ranching on particular parcels.Some sellers worried a bit about locking in theeconomic options for future inheritors of theeasement-restricted parcels. The most criticalopinion came from a Marin landowner:

“What we want to do right now ispreserve this. But the next generationmight have a different idea. Theproperty won’t be as valuable. I don’tknow what perpetuity will mean. Wedon’t know what the conditions will beand it could be that the dairy will not beviable anymore.”-Marin landowner, 2/18/99

Another Marin respondent argued for less-than-permanent easements as more compatible withthe economic fluctuations in agriculture:

“...farmers are not being paid enough tohave their land tied up for perpetuity.You do not know what is going tohappen a hundred years from now...Weare really tight now in agriculture,pretty much a marginal income status

26

for most ag operations. I do favor the15 and 30 year easements under USDAfarmland protection programs...I am infavor of a non-permanent easement,like a lease or something like that for a30 or 50 year period. ”-Marin landowner, 4/20/99

The Personal Dimension

Underlying these preservationist sentiments formany landowners were highly personalconnections to their easement parcels. Anumber commented on their feelings andattachments to these particular properties:

“Farmers, when they farm land, theykind of get attached to it. And itbecomes a part of you.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/30/99

“It’s our life...all our lives. It’s whatmakes us incredibly happy.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

What most clearly contributed to these feelingswas a family history associated with the parcel,a pattern much more apparent amonglandowners in Marin than those in the two othercounties. Eleven of the 12 Marin respondentswho were easement sellers reported that theparcels had been in their families for at leasttwo generations. Having grown up on the land,several told us of childhood memories:

“It’s my parents’ and grandparents’land…and I’ve always had a verypersonal attachment to it from the timethat I was a boy. I remember the firsttime I was cutting and raking grass overat my aunt’s place in the hayfield..and Iwas doing a task that my father and hisfather had done in this same field…Ijust had this really wonderful feeling.”—Marin landowner, 3/26/99

“My great-grandfather had it, and thenmy grandfather and my grandmotherwho I was very close to, and they sharedit. It is always exciting for me tochange a fence or do something

knowing that they had worked on orbuilt it years ago.”—Marin landowner, 3/29/99

Residence on the easement parcel added furtherto these feelings. Again this was mostprevalent among Marin respondents. All of theMarin landowners, in fact, resided on theireasement-protected parcels at the time of ourinterviews; they had long been the family homesite for most. By contrast, less than half of theSonoma landowners and none of the Yolorespondents resided on their easement parcels.Knowing the parcel as a place of residence aswell as place of work gave it further meaning asa place to be preserved:

“I had a tremendous economicinvestment already in the property.And, you know, I really didn’t want tolive anywhere else. It’s a nice place tolive and it’s where I work. I like livingon the coast. And my wife likes it too,so that was important.”-Marin landowner, 5/11/99

It was also important for some landowners thattheir adult children wanted to live on theproperty, even if they were not involved in thefarm operation.

Landowner Vignettes

While common factors appear throughout thesample, there was a unique personal storybehind each original landowner’s motivation tosell an easement. The following five shortdescriptions of particular situations illustratevarying combinations of economics, familycircumstances, and land stewardship sentimentsin the decision to sell.

Estate Taxes, Family, Natural Preserve. Thislarge easement-protected parcel was part of aranch that had been in the landowner’s familyfor a century and a half. The land in the pasthad supported sheep and cattle, but had “noeconomic use” at the time of the easement sale.A portion of the overall property was donated tothe state to be added to adjacent parkland. Thelandowner had no desire to resume active

27

ranching on the protected land, but wanted topass it on to two sons for their enjoyment as aplace of great scenic beauty. No one lived onthe property at the time of the sale, although itcontained old family residences. The parcel islocated 10 minutes from a city edge, and inthe past the landowner had received numerousinquiries about selling for residentialdevelopment. The landowner is involved in anonprofit organization that sponsors visits tothe parcel by elementary school classesengaged in stewardship projects.

The imperative for selling the easement, wasto retire a large estate tax liability, but clearlythe landowner is committed to taking care ofthe land as open space property. Even theopportunity to build homes on the land forfamily members was ruled out, although theparcel could accommodate several home sitesunder county zoning.

“It’s not important that it’s in agricul-ture, but it should be maintained asnatural preserve. We got an expert fromUC Davis to come out and look at ouroak trees, because there are someerosion issues...What started it wastaxes. I was in over my head but it’s anemotional piece of property for me and Iwanted to keep it in the family...(Thecash) put me in a position to be a bettersteward of the land...It’s assurance thatthe land will stay as it is. And that itwill be well-maintained. I’m learningwhat is involved in controlling erosion.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/28/99

Farming, Family. Stewardship was also afactor in this landowner’s easement transac-tion, but for continued farming purposesinstead of natural land preservation. His landis located adjacent to a school and a residen-tial subdivision. He had been approached bypotential developers, but rejected theseinquiries outright. Perhaps the personalattachment to the land was not as compellingas the previous respondent’s, because he hadowned it only for about 10 years and it lackeda long family history. But his interest in long-

term land preservation was also strong. Thislandowner is a full-time grower of apples andgrapes. Two adult sons are partners with him indifferent aspects of the operation. Passing thefarmland on to them is implicit in thelandowner’s reasons for selling the easement.With the cash from the sale, he purchasedadditional farm property to add to his and hissons’ operations. He plans over time to replaceold apple orchards with new grape plantings.

“I approached them (the easementprogram) on the basis of agriculturalpreservation. And I said to them, ifyou’re really interested in preservingagriculture, here is some of the verybest farm soil in the United States. It’struly an outstanding piece of farmproperty...It’s hugely important to methat it stay in agriculture because I wasbeing approached by potential buyerssaying we think you have a great pieceof property right near the sewer districtand we think it has great potential fordevelopment into housing. And I’d sayI’m not really interested in that. Andthey’d say what if we brought you areally good offer? And so one alwaysstarts thinking about that. But mydesire to keep the property in farmingand to someday be able to give it to mysons as part of their farming operation, Ithink that outweighed everything else.This will always be farm ground andwill never be developed. And I’m sohappy about that, proud of myself fordoing that.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/29/99

Business Investment. According to this dairyfarmer, he sold the easement for purely eco-nomic reasons. Half of the cash received wentinto off-farm investments, and the other halfwas used to make environmental improvementsand support farm operations. A full-timefarmer, he feeds his cows on 500 acres includ-ing leased land. Both of his adult childrensupport keeping the land in the family. One isan employee of the dairy and is expected tobecome a partner shortly. The landowner

28

purchased the easement parcel in the 1980s andhas lived there only since the 1970s, althoughhe is a member of a four-generation dairyfamily in the area. The easement parcel is 12miles from the nearest city and is not in the pathof urban development.

A successful farmer in his own operation, thelandowner is worried about the future ofdairying in the area. He notes that land hasbecome too expensive for such farming and thatthe number of dairy farms in the county hassteadily decreased.

“I think you need to look at what you’redoing from a business standpoint so thepersonal attachment was not a factor,it’s strictly business...I sat the kids downand told them, you may dig me up in 50years and kick me, but to me it lookslike a business opportunity. Because Idon’t plan on doing anything with thisland other than dairy. So we did agreeon that...My children now have anattachment to this land. I made acomment at one time that I’m gettingtired and I am going to sell the cowsand the ranch. They said, ‘Oh no, notthe ranch!’ ”-Marin landowner, 3/23/99

Settle Estate, Retain in Agriculture. Buyingout the shares of two siblings in the family trustwas this landowner’s principal motivation forselling the easement. All of the proceeds wereused to consolidate his ownership. He has anoff-farm occupation and leases the 200-acreparcel to a rancher who pastures replacementdairy heifers. The land has been in thelandowner’s family since the 1850s. He liveson the property and does ranch maintenancework (fence repairs, etc.) on weekends. Noneof his children are interested in farming. Theproperty is remote from urban development.

“The property was in a family trust andmy two siblings and I were the benefi-ciaries and the trustees. They wanted toget rid of it, to get as much for it as theycould. They didn’t have any feeling forkeeping it. Even though I had main-

tained it for years, putting in tanks,water systems, cattle guards and soforth...This (easement sale) allowed meto buy their two-thirds interest after wewent through some court proceedingsand set the cost...My grandchildren andmy daughter keep their horses there, andthey enjoy riding around. But they’renot involved in any production agricul-ture.”-Marin landowner, 5/11/99

Cash for Farming. This landowner is a full-time farmer who grows a variety of field cropson his easement-protected parcel, part of anoverall agricultural operation that coversseveral thousand acres. Neither of his threeadult children are involved or interested infarming as an occupation. The landowner livesin a nearby small city. There are no residenceson his parcel which he has owned for 14 years.Urbanization is slowly moving in the directionof the parcel. The landowner reports that hereceives several calls a year concerning possibledevelopment. His major reason for selling theeasement was to secure cash to support the farmoperation.

“It is a very nice property, one that isexcellent for growing crops. It haswater from three differentsources...So it’s good land to pre-serve for agriculture...I used themoney from the sale to help mefinance the operation. It basicallywent to pay for farm losses...I amnot really interested in seeing houseson this property. At one stage in mylife I might have considered it. But Ithink now that I’m more interestedin continuing it for farming.”-Yolo landowner, 7/28/99

Second Generation Landowners

For most of the nine landowners in the threecounties who purchased their properties afterthe development rights had been removed,having an easement in place was a decidedadvantage. The principal reason, they said, isthat it made the purchase more affordable. By

29

eliminating the possibility of development, aneasement in effect reduces the market valuefrom a speculative to a farm production level.Noted one Marin purchaser:

“We couldn’t have bought the placewithout MALT buying the developmentrights which lowered the price of theranch. It was like a gift from God.Otherwise we couldn’t have affordedit.”-Marin landowner, 2/25/99

Only three of the nine later purchasers viewedtheir easements negatively, either because theycould not build a residence on the property and/or because they would receive a lower thanpossible valve in any future sale of the land.The two Yolo landowners in this category saidthat they were not fully aware of the easementrestrictions and other terms at the time ofpurchase, although such information wassupplied in the real estate transaction. One ofthe Yolo landowners also did not believe thathis purchase was aided by the easement:

“I think I paid at the time what was afair market value for open ground. Iwanted to plant grapes on it and to havesome income from that. I know that asthe time comes when I want to sell, it(the easement) will have a detrimentaleffect. And I do not see any advantageto me by having the easement on it.”-Yolo landowner, 7/29/99

Among the later purchasers, four bought theirland explicitly to expand existing farmingoperations. All were full-time farmers or weresemi-retired with relatives involved in theoperation. Two were Marin dairymen whopurchased the parcels to serve as pasture landfor their dairy cows, and two were Yolo farmerswho were adding to the large cropland acreagealready under their management.

The remaining five later purchasers wereprimarily interested in the attractiveness of theeasement parcels as home sites. None areactively involved in agricultural activities, butthey lease their land to full-time farm operators.

30

31

Chapter 4LANDOWNER EXPERIENCES

What do participating landowners now sayabout their easement-related experiences, someyears or months after the sale of their develop-ment rights? What do they like and dislikeabout these experiences? In part this is aretrospective review of what they recall aboutthe negotiations leading to the easement trans-fer—the details of timing, price, and informa-tion. In part also this is an examination oflandowner perceptions about recent or currentevents, primarily the monitoring conducted bythe three local programs to ensure compliancewith the terms of the easements.

These perceptions are generally positive. Butthey also point to an underlying tension be-tween landowner views and values and theways in which easement programs function.The issue for a number of landowners is one ofcontrol and property rights—how the easementsrestrict certain uses of their properties over andbeyond the basic prohibition on urban develop-ment.

Satisfaction and Problems

Landowners overall have very positive views oftheir easement-related experiences, judgingfrom their responses to two general questions.One question asked about their degree ofsatisfaction with the program and the secondasked about their current willingness to sell theeasement if given a second opportunity. Land-owner views in other respects did not differsubstantially from county to county.

These positive views contain varying degrees ofsatisfaction. A few landowners said they wouldparticipate again only if they could do certainthings differently, mostly revising particularfeatures in their easement deeds. It was amatter of having learned from the negotiationprocess and now wanting to apply this knowl-edge, as one Sonoma landowner noted:

“I wish I knew then what I know now.I would have used different language in

the agreement on where I can build thehouse.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/13/99

Among the 40 landowners who responded tothe general question about satisfaction, 20 wereunqualified in their positive views. The samenumber of respondents, however, cited a rangeof particular issues or problems that they hadwith the program since their initial contact.Most of the perceived issues concern eitherexperiences with easement monitoring (8citations) or complaints about particular deedrestrictions (7). A smaller number citedproblems referring to perceived glitches in thenegotiation process. We examine in greaterdetail below landowner views about the nego-tiation process and the issues of monitoring anddeed restrictions.

Negotiating the Easements

The landowners interviewed in this study wereasked to recall their experiences in the negotia-tions leading to the sale of their easements—including timing, price received, adequacy ofinformation, and other details of the process.Based on their descriptions, we cannot easilypicture a common experience. The negotiationswere highly particular processes, tied to theunique features of landowners’ personal circum-stances and the characteristics of their parcels.MALT, the SCAPOSD, and the YLT havestandard documents that lay out the restrictionsand other terms of an easement, but they arerevised according to the peculiarities of eachtransaction. Furthermore, the recollectionsoffered by landowners differed greatly inspecificity and comprehensiveness, reflecting inpart the time that had elapsed since the negotia-tions. Some of the transactions had occurred asmany as 16 years in the past (the earliest MALTeasements) while others were as fresh as a fewmonths. In a few cases our respondents had notbeen directly involved in the negotiations,either because this was the task of other familymembers or because respondents were later

32

purchasers of the easement properties.Still, we can offer a few observations abouttiming, perceived ease of negotiations, pricesreceived, and adequacy of information.

Landowners and program managers approachthese negotiations from different perspectives.Most obviously, the former want to receivehigher prices for their easements than the latterwant to pay. But there are also crucial differ-ences in the view of how easement-protectedparcels are to be restricted in their use. Land-owners want the maximum flexibility in the useof their properties, while program managersseek to limit practices that can affect theagricultural viability or natural condition ofparcels. This is not a disagreement over thebasic purpose of agricultural easements—theprotection of farmland from urban develop-ment. Rather the differences concern moreincremental or subtle practices, such as theability to add one or a few home sites to aproperty for family members, to add other farm-related structures, or to engage in certaincultivation or animal grazing practices. Ques-tions of price and specific deed restrictions thusare the central elements in these negotiations.

Timing. According to landowner recollections,the time it took to consummate their easementsales—from initial contact with program staff tosignoff—varied between a few months andseveral years. It was about a year or less formost Marin participants, more than a year formost Sonoma participants. The time lapse wasonly a few months for the small number (onlythree) of Yolo landowners who provided theseestimates.

What factors slowed down the negotiations?Individual landowners cited one or more ofthese conditions: (1) Limited availability offunds for easement purchases; (2) disagree-ments over price, resulting in one or morereappraisals of property value; (3) familycomplications; (4) bureaucratic inertia orcumbersome procedures (“red tape’); (5)haggling over particular easement provisions.

Limited purchase funds were the major problemin Marin County in the 1990s, as MALTstruggled to accommodate a backlog of willing

landowners after its initial funding from statebonds (Proposition 70). This was not a barrierin Sonoma County with the steady flow of salestax funds to the open space district. Sonomalandowners instead referred primarily toproperty reappraisals, bureaucratic procedures,and the fine tuning of easement language as theprincipal causes of delay in the negotiations.

The problem with property appraisals, cited inSonoma and to a lesser extent in Marin, has itsroots in large part in the difficulty faced byprofessional appraisers in determining withsome degree of accuracy the dollar worth ofparticular easements (essentially the differencebetween a property’s urban development orspeculative value and its value for agriculturalproduction). Some of the appraisers conductingthese valuations had little experience in thisspecialized area and were handicapped by thelimited availability of “comps,” recently-recorded sales of comparable properties that arethe usual basis for property valuations.

Price. When asked if they had received a “fairprice” for their easements, 21 of the 24 land-owners who commented on this question said“yes.” A few qualified this response by adding“at that time,” noting that later developments inthe land market suggested that they could haveultimately bargained for higher sums for givingup their development rights. (One Marinlandowner noted that the program in adjacentSonoma County was able to pay higher pricesper acre than MALT’s record.) Only threelandowners in the sample volunteered theopinion that the sums they received weresomewhat less than what they thought appropri-ate at the time of the transaction.

Ease of Negotiation. Most landowners saidthey found no fault with the negotiations. Anumber were pleased to accept the originaloffers of price and terms with little or noinclination to bargain further. Others were nothappy at all with initial offers and engaged inserious bargaining, sometimes successfullygaining concessions from the program.

Landowners usually consulted their attorneysand/or accountants; sometimes the professionalsdirectly represented their clients in the negotia-

33

tions. In agreeing to go ahead with easementdeals, landowners did not always take theadvice of their consultants who in some caseswere more cautious about price and terms thantheir clients.

Information. We also asked landowners in thisstudy about how well informed they wereduring the easement negotiations. Most re-ported receiving adequate information from theprograms, including sample contracts, supple-mented by advice from their attorneys andaccountants. Some respondents said that theywere helped by a good understanding of theeasement process before entering into negotia-tions because of earlier involvement with thelocal program or farm organizations.

However, a few landowners said that they werenot fully informed or were misinformed aboutparticular matters. One or more respondentseach referred to these topics: (1) the extent ofthe required monitoring of property conditions;(2) allowable residential units, both number andlocation; (3) land values; (4) the tax benefits ofcontributing a portion of the easement value;(5) overall guidelines.

Some of the most critical comments aboutinadequate information came from landownerswho had purchased their parcels with easementsalready in place. Four of the nine respondentsin this category said that they did not fullyunderstand the restrictions on the use of theirland when they bought their properties, particu-larly the limits on new housing. They attrib-

Table 6. Use of Cash Received from Easement Sales (Multiple responses)

Use of Cash Marin Sonoma Yolo Total

Non-farm uses 6 6 1 13

Farm investment 4 5 1 10

Estate settlement 3 5 — 8

Reduce farm debt 4 3 — 7

Number of landowners 12 16 2 30responding

uted this gap in part to insufficient informationprovided by the realtors who handled thetransactions.

Use of Easement Funds

How did landowners use the cash from theireasement sales? No one type of expenditurewas dominant among the 30 landowners whoprovided information on this topic, as Table 6notes. The largest number cited non-farm use,such as providing retirement income, puttingmoney into savings or the market, or spendingon family members. Investing in farm opera-tions, either buying more land or makingimprovements, was the second most frequentlymentioned expenditure. Slightly fewer land-owners mentioned resolving estate problems—usually consolidating ownership in one familymember by buying the ownership interest ofothers—and for retiring or reducing farm debt.

Besides investing cash in additional farmproperty or facilities, a few landowners alsomade significant changes in their operations.Several Sonoma landowners and one in Marinsaid they were in the process of convertinggrazing or other cropland to vineyards. Onefamily converted its conventional dairy to anorganic operation. Four Sonoma Countyrespondents said they were considering steps todevelop the recreational potential of theirproperties. The great majority of landowners,however, reported no significant changes incommodities produced or in other farm opera-tions after selling their easements.

34

Post-Transaction Contacts

Landowners continue to have contact with theorganizations that hold their easements beyondthe sale negotiations. At a minimum, thesecontacts involve yearly inspections of proper-ties that the conservation programs are sup-posed to conduct to assure compliance witheasement terms. Experiences with such moni-toring are described below.

Other, more frequent interactions with theprograms were reported by some landowners.This was much more common for Marinrespondents than landowners in the other twocounties, due partly to the relative longevity ofthe program and also to MALT’s efforts topublicize its work through a quarterly newslet-ter and its other public activities including farmtours, workshops, and social events. SomeMarin respondents said they regularly oroccasionally took part in such events. An evenhigher degree of program involvement is seenin the participation by at least six of the Marinlandowners as one-time or current members ofthe MALT board of directors.

Monitoring

The majority of landowners in this sample weresatisfied with the monitoring of their parcels.However, among the 33 respondents whocommented about this topic, 14 reportednegative experiences or perceptions of theprocess.

To check landowner compliance with the termsof their easements, each of the three conserva-tion organizations attempts to inspect annuallyall of the parcels they have enrolled. In thisprocess, program representatives visit a parcelfor a visual inspection and talk with the land-owner. MALT and the SCAPOSD have staffmembers assigned to this task, although theSCAPOSD also uses non-paid volunteers.Since 1999, the YLT has used a small commit-tee of farmer-volunteers under direction of itsexecutive director to conduct inspections.

Implicit in the monitoring process is a tuggingbetween the conservation objectives of ease-

The Sense of Control: What’s in theContract

In selling conservation easements, landownersobviously lose a degree of control over theirproperties. When considered only as theprohibition on more intensive or urban develop-ment forms of land use, this limitation was notan issue for the landowners we interviewed.After all, they willingly transferred theirdevelopment rights in return for compensationand, in some cases, the satisfaction of contribut-ing to a worthy conservation purpose.

But some landowners perceived a decided lossof control at a lesser scale of options for the useof their properties. They expressed concernabout the required monitoring process (exam-ined below) and about various restrictions in theeasement contracts, particularly how they areinterpreted and implemented by the programs.Most of the problems cited in the interviewsconcerned limits on the ability to add additionalresidential units on the property. The restric-tions ranged from no residences beyond thenumber already present (except for replacementhouses) to one or more additional houses forfamily members according to the parcel size. Insome cases, there are restrictions on where newresidences can be located on an easementparcel. Local zoning and Williamson Actcontracts often are at least as restrictive asconservation easements for home buildingthough they may not be perpetual. Dependingon individual family situations, such restrictionswere seen as minor or serious impositions oncontrol over one’s property. Other specificrestrictions in individual contracts mentioned inthis context were: (1) building other structures,such as farm worker housing or barns; (2) otherproperty improvements such as drainagefacilities; (3) the use of off-road vehicles; (4)logging and sale of timber; and (5) vineyarddevelopment.

A related source of dissatisfaction for somelandowners was the belief that they had to clearplans for improvements or other land usechanges with the staff of the easement programin cases of uncertainty.

35

“Sometimes you feel uncomfortablewhen they come for the yearlycheck. Just because they look atthings differently than you do inagriculture.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/30/99

Such negative views were expressed by a littleless than half of the Marin and half of theSonoma landowners who commented onmonitoring. Not one of the five Yolo land-owners who mentioned the process wascritical, perhaps a reflection of the limitedexperience with monitoring in this newprogram.

A few landowners, in fact, applauded themonitoring as helping them to better managetheir land. Five in Marin and one in Sonomawere emphatic about these benefits, as thefollowing comments indicate:

“It’s an incentive to me to maintainthe property, to check for thistlesand weeds and signs of degradation.If you maintain the property in thesame condition, the monitoring isinnocuous.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/19/99

“What could be the best part of theprogram is the land stewardthing...As administered by MALT,they don’t hinder us, they’re herefor assistance...(Staff person) hascome out and we have some mutualconcerns about one field oranother...I look at the monitoringsystem right now as a resource.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

Several Marin respondents singled out thestaff person responsible for MALT’s monitor-ing as sensitive to local circumstances, knowl-edgeable, and helpful to landowners interestedin improving their land management practices.One Sonoma landowner, on the other hand,criticized the SCAPOSD’s monitoring processas insufficiently systematic and not holdinglandowners “accountable for the publicfunds.”

ment programs and landowners’ dislike ofintrusions on their properties. One landownernoted an inherent ambiguity in this tension:

“The land conservation requirementsare a very important part of the programand could be very positive for landown-ers. It’s like a reality check, a greatresource to have this information aboutyour practices...On the other hand,being monitored often means you havea little bit of freedom taken away.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

For some property owners, the inspections andsuggestions of program representatives becamea control or “property rights” issue, an imposi-tion that they believed exceeds their easement-related obligations. As long as they did notblatantly seek to add buildings to their proper-ties, several questioned the need for the inspec-tions, referring to the emphasis in the inspec-tions on such land conservation problems asovergrazing by farm animals, erosion, andwater quality in creeks. Some landowners withlong family histories in farming resented beingtold how to properly steward their land. A fewfelt that they had not been fully informed aboutthe monitoring process during their salesnegotiations. The criticisms ranged fromsubstantive complaints to petty annoyances, asthe following excerpts illustrate:

“I get frustrated with it [monitoring].There is a fence in my yard and I haveto ask permission to take it down...Itturns out that my kid can’t ride hismotorcycle out on the acreage...I can’tput a little motorcycle track out there?Maybe they’ve gone too far. It’s myproperty.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/2/99

“It bothers me a bit. Two years agowhen we had a horrible, horrible spring,they wrote us letters implying that weovergrazed. And we hadn’t done any-thing different...We didn’t have to bechecked...We are not going to bedestructive to our own property, wenever have been.”-Marin landowners, 3/29/99

36

37

At several points in our interviews with land-owners, we asked them to step back from theirpersonal experiences in dealing with the localeasement organizations over property matters,and instead evaluate more generally programsuccesses and impacts. In their views, whathave the programs achieved? What effects havethey had on local agriculture and the pattern ofurbanization? What were the programs’ pur-poses and priorities, in the view of landowners,especially comparing farmland and open spacepreservation objectives? What suggestions didrespondents have for acquisition priorities andprogram changes?

We did not expect that responses to thesequestions would be entirely unaffected bypersonal experiences. Indeed, many of theobservations about program effects, purposes,and priorities were tinged with the positive or

Chapter 5THE POLICY PERSPECTIVE:

VIEWS OF PROGRAM IMPACT AND DIRECTION

negative feelings of having gone througheasement sale transactions and later experienceswith monitoring and other program activities.Still, these landowners were much more knowl-edgeable about the easement programs than thegreat majority of local residents; thus theirinsights and suggestions have particularvalue.

Program Success and Effectiveness

The great majority of landowners said that theprograms were successful in furthering theirpublic purposes to varying degrees, as Table 7shows. Forty-two of the 46 landowners in thesample provided comments on this point.

We did not ask them to respond to a specificdefinition of “success” or “effectiveness.”Instead, respondents provided their own defini-

Table 7. LANDOWNER EVALUATIONS OF PROGRAM SUCCESS1

Marin Sonoma Yolo Total

Successful 13 22 3 38

Not Successful 2 2 2 4

Landowners not responding -- 2 2 4

1How landowners define “success”:

Marin County–protecting farmland from urbanization–individual parcels kept in farming–monetary benefits to ranchers–helping people who want to buy farmland–preservation of community–number of acres in farmland–no development–flexibility

Sonoma County–good value from expenditures–number of acres protected–protection of scenic views and beauty–keeping land in agriculture–citizen support

Yolo County–no responses

38

tions as indicated in Table 7. Marin landown-ers tended to point to the retention of land inranching and to related benefits to localagriculture. One Marin respondent wasespecially pleased by the farming opportuni-ties that the MALT program provided toyoung people and hence the continuity ofagriculture in that county:

“It’s not just the land resources thatwe are trying to protect. But we needalso to keep the skills that come withstewarding the land.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

Sonoma landowners were less explicit inelaborating on their positive views, andtended to emphasize more the value of thedollars spent on easements and the protectionof scenic values. The one Yolo landownerwho elaborated to any degree observed thatthe YLT had made a good start and that theprogram “was a way of solving the problemwithout taking from the owner.”

Among the more enthusiastic of the evalua-tions are these comments, including specula-tions about what would have occurred locallyin the absence of the easement program:

“It’s been absolutely successful...They’reup to what? 26,000 acres? It’s unbeliev-able that a group of people can go outand make that happen in this county...(inthe absence of the program) we’d be SanRafael. We’d be in total development.”-Marin landowner, 3/30/99

“In certain cases you would seechanges in ownership...Wealthypeople would come out and buy someof these ranches. Agriculturists wouldnot have any chance at all of compet-ing for land.”-Marin landowner, 4/26/99

“Well, I probably would be working alot harder to make my monthlypayments. There would be moreparcels that probably would havepassed out of family holdings for one

reason or another.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

“More farm properties would getcarved up upon the death of theowners because of estate issues. Thelong term effect of this program is tokeep properties intact.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/22/99

“The open space program is the bestthing going. I can look out mywindow and see Sonoma Mountain. Iwould hate to see that covered withhouses...The outskirts are still openand beautiful.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/2/99

Negative Views

Only four landowners in the entire samplegave unqualified negative assessments of theprograms. One of the two critics in Marincomplained that MALT was paying too muchfor easements on parcels that would not bedeveloped in any case. The other said theprogram had lost the confidence of the agricul-tural community because of its position onfederal farmland protection legislation. Theone Sonoma critic accused the SCAPOSD ofnot understanding ranching and paying toomuch for easements, while the one Yolo criticthought that the YLT had not acquired enougheasements to have any effect.

Even landowners who were generally positiveabout the programs’ successes expressed someof the same or other reservations. The citedlimitations and faults fall largely into theseareas of criticism:

(1) The programs pay too much for ease-ments. Using their knowledge of localconditions, some respondents pointed toparticular parcels as over-valued in terms ofagricultural productivity and developmentpotential. Some Sonoma landowners cited thepossibility that, because of public perceptionsof waste, voters would not support renewal ofthe dedicated sales tax that funds the easementprogram when it expires in about 2010.

39

2) Some easements are acquired on parcelsthat would not be subject to development inany case. Some respondents referred toparcels on slopes too steep for building. SomeMarin landowners noted that county govern-ment policies virtually prohibited developmentin the rural inland and western regions whereMALT easements are located. (As explainedby others, however, the “development threat”in these areas of Marin is not from residentialsubdivisions or the spread of cities, but comesfrom wealthy persons seeking large acreagefor estate homesites.)

(3) An easement program can do little to stemthe continuing loss of farmland or maintainthe long-term viability of local agriculture,because of larger economic forces. SeveralMarin landowners were skeptical about thestability of the dairy industry in that county.

(4) The program is too bureaucratic, has toolarge a staff, or conducts its affairs in apolitical manner. This was the criticism by afew Sonoma landowners.

(5) The program has insufficient funds. Thiswas an expressed concern in Marin and Yolocounties. In the mid 1990s MALT essentiallyhad run out of funds for easement purchases,while still possessing a large backlog oflandowners who were willing and eligiblesellers.

(6) The program is unsympathetic to truefarmers. In Marin the issue is MALT’ssupport of a controversial congressionalproposal, the Farmland Protection Act. Theconcern among some Sonoma landowners isthe perceived influence on the SCAPOSD byproponents of trails and public access oneasement-protected land.

Examining this last critique, we find that asmall number of landowners in the twocounties were unhappy with what they be-lieved to be actions contrary to the interests oflocal agriculture. In Marin County, a planwhereby MALT would receive federal fundsto acquire easements in the vicinity of thenational seashore stimulated 30-year old

memories of the private property controversiesrelating to the creation of the park. Com-plained one landowner:

“...there was the impression that MALTwould then sell the easements that theyalready owned in that area to the Depart-ment of Interior. That bothered me alot...Here we have MALT, which isadministered by local people and thelocal board of directors with localvalues...”-Marin landowner, 5/11/99

A few Sonoma County critics argued that theSCAPOSD had begun to give priority toapplicants who would accept public trails intheir easements, despite the avowal of publicaccess when the program was first promotedin the agricultural community. Landownersof course ordinarily oppose public access ontheir easement-protected acres because ofliability issues and the conflict with farmoperations. The perception was that thedistrict was now catering to environmental andurban interests on this matter.

“The supervisors are allowing the trailpeople to be more influential...they arenow putting pressure on landowners.”-Sonoma landowner, 3/30/99

The Policy Context

Most landowners seemed to be familiar withtheir county’s overall approach to farmlandand open space protection, consideringresponses to a question that asked them tocompare the easement technique with otherland use tools. They generally recognized thatacquiring easements on farm parcels is a morelasting and hence effective form of protectionthan zoning, Williamson Act contracts, orother mechanisms used by county govern-ments. One Yolo County landowner made thisblunt assertion:

“Easements can be an incredibly usefultool to retain the agricultural characterof a county or region because they putprotection on property that is beyond the

40

political winds as they may blow in anysuccessive wave of boards of supervi-sors or city councils. History has shownthat no board of supervisors over timewill be able to withstand developmentpressure...That’s the utility of it from apolicy standpoint because the law istaking the place of politics.”-Yolo landowner, 8/5/99

But some landowners saw the protectivebenefits of easements as greatest when theyworked in conjunction with other tools. Thisview was especially strong among Marinrespondents, who lauded the county’s govern-ment policies for confining urban expansionlargely to the cities in the eastern corridor andestablishing strong controls in the rural inlandand coastal areas. Most Marin respondentssaid that the county’s A-60 (60-acre density)zoning, and Williamson Act contracts hadhelped retain much of the farmland base in thepast. Neither of these tools, however, could inthe long term prevent cash-starved dairyfarmers and ranchers from selling theirproperties for homesites, some landownersargued. They noted that the real threat tofarmland in their area came not from conven-tional subdivision developers, but fromwealthy persons migrating from San Franciscoand other communities who are attracted byvalley and coastal vistas and are able topurchase large parcels for estate houses.

By allowing dairy and ranching families tokeep operating, easements provide another andnecessary level of protection.

“This program is a logical alternative toA-60 zoning. A-60 at its inception wasonly supposed to be a temporarything...Too many people can afford tocome out and buy 60 acres.”-Marin landowner, 3/26/99

Sonoma landowners were not as stronglypositive about the farmland protection effortsof their county government, several notinginconsistent actions in the past in this area.Several were critical of urban growth bound-aries, a growth management technique re-cently approved by voters countywide and in

most of the county’s cities. While someSonoma respondents also spoke highly of theWilliamson Act program in protecting farm-land, most comments about agriculturalzoning concerned its transitory nature.

“The easement program is the bestthing. It gets around the zoning whichcan be changed by the board of supervi-sors. Nothing is forever with zoning—itcan be changed by a whim. The ease-ment is a forever thing.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/13/99

Program Purpose: Farmland or OpenSpace Protection

As a resource to be protected, farmland is bothan economic asset and a form of open spacewith scenic and other environmental values.How do our landowners view these separatebut overlapping objectives in the missions ofthe three easement programs? Do they seethem as compatible or conflicting objectives?

All but four of the 46 respondents respondedto a question about the major purpose of theprogram in their county, identifying eitherfarmland or open space protection, or acombination of the two. Table 8 shows that theemphasis varied by county. Most MarinCounty landowners (10 of 15) stressed farm-land protection as the leading purpose ofMALT, while most Sonoma County landown-ers (14 of 25) emphasized the open spaceobjective. Several other Sonoma Countyrespondents mentioned variations of the openspace theme, including establishing commu-nity separators and preserving the “rural look”of the county. Half of the small number ofYolo respondents cited the farmland protectionobjective.

These differences in emphasis reflect in partthe established objectives of the three pro-grams. As stated in their published materials,MALT is singularly focused on farmland as anagricultural resource while the Sonoma districthas multiple objectives:

“...to permanently preserve MarinCounty farmlands for agricultural use.”

41

Table 8. PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PROGRAM PURPOSE (includes multiple responses)

Major Purpose Marin Sonoma Yolo Total

Preserve farmland, local agriculture 10 5 3 18

Preserve open space 2 14 -- 16

Provide community separators -- 4 -- 4

Preserve natural beauty, rural look 1 3 -- 4

Prevent development 2 -- 1 3

Promote conservation 1 1 -- 2

Give landowners an option 1 -- 1 --

Prevent sprawl -- 1 -- 1

Manage and monitor easements -- -- 1 1

Landowners not responding -- 3 1 4

-Marin Agricultural Land Trust News,Spring, 1998

“...to acquire interests in SonomaCounty’s agricultural, natural resourceand open space lands...”-SCAPOSD,1994 brochure

The YLT has a slightly different emphasis thatcombines farmland and habitat:

“We are farmers working to protectagricultural and habitat lands in YoloCounty.”-Yolo Land Trust: Working Together forLand Conservation in Yolo County,1998 brochure

As to the question of compatibility betweenfarmland and open space protection, theoverwhelming majority of the 25 landownerswho discussed this question said the twopurposes were complementary. Some of thosewith positive views, however, also expressedconcern about the negative impacts of public

access on agricultural operations. Here aresome observations on the positive side:

“Keeping land in agriculture is goodfor those people who want open space.Not only does it keep the land open,but cattle will get rid of some of thejunk (weeds) that comes up.”-Marin landowner, 4/26/99

“People who want to look at openspace are just as happy looking atcows and sheep, as weeds and brush.”-Marin landowner, 5/11 /99

“Having open space around in anagricultural production area is moreconducive to agriculture. Half of thethings that people sell as open space isagriculture. They coexist.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/22/99

The four landowners (three in Marin and onein Yolo) who cited the incompatibility offarmland and open space objectives empha-

42

Table 9. PRIORITIES FOR EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS

Priority Marin Sonoma Yolo Total

Agricultural productivity, value 4 4 1 9

Location in relation to urbanization 3 9 2 14

First come, first served 5 – – 5

Open space, scenic land 1 1 – 2

Landowner longevity – 1 – 1

Landowners not responding 2 10 3 15

sized the differences between farmland as alocation for economic activity and its value as apublic amenity:

“Open space is just keeping buildingfrom happening, but preserving agricul-ture allows somebody to make a livingoff of the land.”-Marin landowner, 4/16/99

“They (open space and farmland objec-tives) are from two opposite ends of thespectrum. We who utilize this landmake our living from it. Now, if youwant open space, you only want to lookat it. You don’t want to be responsiblefor it.”-Marin landowner, 3/23/99

Priorities for Acquiring Easements

A key issue for any serious easement program ishow to spend its acquisition funds, especiallyone with a steady stream of interested landown-ers covering a large territory. Among thepossible considerations are: (1) the soil qualityor other dimensions of the agricultural produc-tivity of particular parcels; (2) location, espe-cially in relation to guiding the future path ofurban growth; and (3) environmental values,such as the preservation of wetlands, habitat, orriparian lands. So we asked landowners whatthe acquisition priorities of their local programsshould be.

As summarized in Table 9, 31 of the 46 land-owners in the sample responded to this question.The priorities they identified covered agricul-tural productivity and location categories, andseveral other unrelated options. Sonomalandowners were more inclined than others tocite location in relation to urban growth, refer-ring especially to that county’s interest in usingeasements to create “community separators”between the rapidly expanding cities alongHighway 101. (One respondent argued againstthis priority on the basis that the best farmlandwas elsewhere in the county and that the 101corridor was already too urbanized to allow aneffective preservation effort.) While supportingthis priority, however, three Sonoma landownersnoted the expense to the SCAPOSD of acquir-ing easements in areas with high speculativeland values because of the proximity to urbangrowth.

Three Marin and six Sonoma landowners shareda common complaint–that excessive funds hadbeen spent by their programs to acquire ease-ments on remote parcels that in the long runwould not be threatened by urban growth:

“You wonder why they’re buying some ofthis land way out. Because it will prob-ably be years before it is developed.”-Marin landowner, 4/26/99

43

“They should emphasize situations thatare both scenic and that are communityseparators. I’m not sure that spendingmoney on sheep land out in the middleof nowhere is what we should do.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/29/99

Suggestions for Program Changes

Finally, we asked landowners to suggestspecific changes in the easement programs.Twenty-nine of the 46 landowners in thesample offered their ideas, addressing boardmembership, activities, procedures, fundingand other aspects of program organization andoperation. Table 10 categorizes these sugges-tions for each county.

An underlying theme in the comments ofseveral of the Marin landowners was a percep-tion that MALT, despite its origins and initialsupport in the ranching community, wasmoving away from its agricultural attach-ments. Commented one landowner:

“MALT was supposed to be ag con-scious. But it seems that they’re justthere to prevent urbanization.”-Marin landowner, 3/3/99

This perception was expressed in the sugges-tions that the MALT board should be com-posed largely of agriculturalists, that the landtrust should engage in more outreach pro-grams to acquaint urban people with localfarming, and that it should not seek federalfunds for easements that could be used toexpand the national seashore. Here is whatone landowner said about board membership:

“I think the MALT board is a little bitheavy with people who are outside ofthe farming community, who don’ttotally understand the gravity of what’sgoing on here. This is a big decisionthat a lot of people are making and wehave to understand that we are going totry to farm the land, one way, shape oranother. We need to have people whocan understand these ideas.”-Marin landowner, 5/3/99

Almost half of the Sonoma landowners whooffered suggestions for program changeswanted to see a quicker, less cumbersomeprocess in negotiating and consummatingeasement sales, a reflection of their ownexperiences:

“They need to streamline the process orthe landowners will get frustrated. Iwould be concerned for people withless sophistication than me. You needgood advisors and professional strengthto get through this...They’ve got tomake it easier for other people.”-Sonoma landowner, 4/28/99

The most specific suggestions in this categoryconcerned reforms in appraisal procedures andclearer guidelines for prospective easementsellers.

Two respondents desired less “politics” in theoperations of the SCAPOSD, referring gener-ally to the recent (at the time of the interviews)controversy concerning the dismissal of thedistrict’s first general manager. In a similarvein, two other landowners argued for adistrict more independent from county govern-ment authority, perhaps governed by a sepa-rately elected board.

44

Table 10. SUGGESTED PROGRAM CHANGES (includes multiple responses)

Marin (comments from 12 of 15 landowners) Mentions More representation of agriculture on board 4 Increased funding 4 Education, program outreach 3 Local, not federal funding 2 Change appraisal process 1 Allow family residences 1 Easements on developable land, not steep hillsides 1

Sonoma (comments from 16 of 25 landowners) Simplify process of negotiating, finalizing easements 7 Less “political” 2 More independent organization, elected board 2 Increased funding 2 Better direction for program 2 Allow short-term easements 1 County supervisors should visit easement sites 1 More representation of agriculture on board 1

Yolo (comments from 1 of 6 landowners) Simplify easement documents, less legalistic 1 Increased funding 1

45

From the perspective of farmers and ranchersin three northern California counties who haveconservation easements on their agriculturalproperties, the easements are a valuable andeffective tool for both personal and publicpurposes. This is the basic conclusion of ourresearch. The 37 landowners who wereoriginal easement sellers willingly–enthusias-tically in most cases–sold conservationeasements, giving up the development rightsfor themselves and for future generations ofowners and accepting other restrictions aswell. Cash, the ideals of land preservation, andfamily benefits, separately or in combination,more than compensated for the permanent lossof this important property option. And now,some years or months after the transactions,they find few reasons to regret their actionsand are satisfied with their continuing experi-ences with the local conservation programs.The positive views extend to favorable evalua-tions of the broader public dimensions of theprograms, and to issues of performance andimpact. The 9 landowners who later pur-chased parcels with easements attached havesimilar views of the easement technique, mostpointing to its personal benefits in making thepurchased properties more affordable.

Program Recommendations: Facilitatingthe Landowner Relationship

Landowners also perceive problems anddeficiencies in how the MALT, SCAPOSD,and YLT negotiate transactions, otherwise dealwith landowners, and handle their publicbusiness. Such negative comments, however,do not diminish the overall positive views ofthe three programs as much as they suggestareas for organizational and proceduralimprovements. More broadly, these sugges-tions apply to all agricultural easement pro-grams that seek positive and beneficial rela-tionships with their landowner participants.

Some agency-landowner tensions are almostinevitable. For example, it is natural foragency buyers and landowner sellers to differ

in negotiating the price of an easement.Likewise there is an underlying tension in themonitoring process between the public pur-poses of an easement and landowner percep-tions of their property rights. These problemsfor individual programs may diminish overtime as they develop more expertise andexperience and acquire more resources. Thebuyer-seller gap in price expectations, forexample, may drop as rural land appraisersdevelop more certainty and expertise in theestimation of easement values.

With or without such developments, however,easement programs on their own can enhancelandowner relations in several conventionalways. The findings of this three-countysurvey of landowner perceptions and experi-ences points to the following four areas ofadvice:

1. Programs should seek ways to clarify andexpedite easement negotiations with willinglandowners. The obvious advice for programmanagers is to provide complete informationto potential easement sellers at the time ofinitial contact, to be open and accessible asnegotiations proceed, and to be sensitive toindividual landowner circumstances. It isespecially important that landowners under-stand fully the meaning and later implementa-tion of specific easement terms, including userestrictions and the monitoring process. Somedelays and other obstacles in negotiatingeasements may be due to conditions beyondthe control of easement agencies, such asintra-family disagreements among the multipleowners of an agricultural parcel. Sometimesthe major ingredient in delaying the comple-tion of a negotiation is the immediate lack ofacquisition funds, a condition faced by mostCalifornia agricultural easement programs dueto unsteady revenue streams.

2. Programs should make a special effort toexplain to later purchasers of restrictedparcels how the easement affects their use ofthe land. Property buyers typically are

Chapter 6CONCLUSIONS

46

informed during the real estate process of therestrictions contained in their new deeds,including those created by agricultural andother easements. But this may not convey to anew landowner a full appreciation of his or herobligations under an easement, as well as itspurposes and consequences. To avoid latermisunderstandings, agencies should makepersonal contact with new purchasers of theparcels on which they hold easements, to passon full information about specific restrictionsand monitoring, and to get them interested inother program activities.

3. Programs should monitor easement-restricted parcels as a cooperative ratherthan adversarial process, one which provideslandowner benefits as well as ensuringcompliance with easement terms. If ap-proached strictly in a legal fashion, monitoringbecomes a regulatory activity that is focusedon ferreting out violations of easement terms.This emphasis may be required in extremecases of land use changes or neglect. But formost landowners, monitoring should be a lessintrusive and more informative process thatstresses better land stewardship. The stepsthat help to achieve such an outcome includeformal and written guidelines, consistency inthe monitoring activity from year to year,advance landowner notification, writtenreports, and personal contacts.

4. Programs should seek to involve landown-ers in conservation activities other than thosedirectly related to easement management.Nonprofit land trusts with broad conservationagendas generally have an edge over publicagencies in this area. With its farm tours,workshops, and newsletters, MALT provides amodel of what can be done to stimulate publicinterest and participation in conservationactivities. Besides benefiting personally fromsuch activities, landowners with easementsalso provide valuable lessons in land conser-vation for other segments of their communi-ties.

How Applicable to the Central Valley?

It remains to ask about the generality of thesefindings. With only 46 landowners in ourresearch sample, how much can we say aboutthe prospects for easement adoptions generallyby California farmers and ranchers? Inparticular, how applicable are these findings tolandowner attitudes and behavior in theCentral Valley, the state’s premier agriculturalregion?

This concern about applicability is more aboutthe diversity of the research sample than itssize. Our 46 landowners (owning more than29,000 acres in easement-protected parcels)are a sizable proportion of the still smallnumber of farmers throughout California witheasements on their land. The 46 respondentsare more than 40 percent of the total partici-pants in these three active easement programs,and a substantial fraction of all such landown-ers in the state. But in terms of commoditiesand agricultural situations represented, theresearch sample is a rather narrow one. Morethan four-fifths of our respondents are farm-land owners in two adjacent coastal counties,Marin and Sonoma, and most of them aredairy operators or beef or sheep ranchers.Both counties are dominated by one or twocommodities–milk and ranching in Marin andincreasingly, grapes in Sonoma. Absent in thissample is an agricultural diversity that wouldresemble more the multiple crop patterns ofthe Central Valley and most of its individualcounties. Yolo of course is a Central Valleycounty, but the six landowners it contributes tothe study have little impact on the overallcharacter of the sample.

We can note also other differences betweenMarin-Sonoma and Central Valley agricultureand environment that may limit the applicabil-ity of research findings from the former to thelatter region. Land preservation for farming,the leading motivation for selling easements inthe two coastal counties, may not be as

47

prevalent an attraction for Central Valleyfarmers. A major reason is that Central Valleyfarms are generally larger operations in dollarflow and owners here may give less weight tothe value of their parcels as family homesitesthan as an economic resource. Land preserva-tion attitudes in general also may be lessprevalent among Central Valley landownersthan among coastal farmers, considering thegreater abndance of farmland in this vastinland region.1

On the other hand, the results of this researchmay not be so limited after all when weconsider other factors. Our findings arecomparable to the conclusions of studies ofeasement activities in several northeasternstates that note the greater importance ofpreservationist sentiments than financialconsiderations as landowner motivations forgiving up development rights.2

Easements unquestionably are a flexible toolfor advancing the personal, family, andbusiness goals of landowners. As this studyillustrates, they can serve a range of needs–consolidating family ownership, preserving alandscape, providing the means to expand anagricultural operation and make it moreefficient. Who can say that Central Valleyfarmers and ranchers would not find suchopportunities appealing? The remaining tworesearch reports in this project will deal furtherwith these possibilities. The second willexamine the organization and performance oflocal easement programs throughout Califor-nia, and the third will discuss prospects forusing the technique in the Central Valley.

2See the three studies cited in Chapter 1.

1For general evidence of differences in conservation attitudes between voters in the two regions, see Alvin D.Soklow, “Variations in Local Farmland Protection Policy: The Central Valley and the North Bay.” Pp 141-160,California Farmland and Urban Perspectives, edited by Albert G. Medvitz, Alvin D. Sokolow and Cathy Lemp.University of California Agricultural Issues Center, 1999.

48

Bay Area Open Space Council. 1999. Ensuring thePromise of Conservation Easements. SanFrancisco, CA.

Elconin, Paul and Valerie A. Luzadis. 1997. Evalu-ating Landowner Satisfaction with ConservationRestrictions. SUNY College of EnvironmentalScience and Forestry, Syracuse, New York.

Faber, Phyllis M. 1999. “MALT: The Land TrustExperience in Marin County.” Pp. 125-140,California Farmland and Urban Pressures:Statewide and Regional Perspectives, edited byAlbert G. Medvitz, Alvin D. Sokolow and CathyLemp. University of California, AgriculturalIssues Center, CA.

Great Valley Center. 1998. Agricultural LandConservation in the Great Central Valley.Modesto, CA.

Marin Agricultural Land Trust. 1998. MarinAgricultural Land Trust News, quarterlynewsletter.

Marin Agricultural Land Trust. 1999. PreservingMarin County Farmlands, 1998-99 Year inReview. Point Reyes Station, CA.

Maynard, Leigh J., Timothy W. Kelsey, Stanford M.Lembeck and John C. Becker. 1998. “Earlyexperience with Pennsylvania’s agriculturalconservation easement program,” Journal of Soiland Water Conservation 53(2), Second Quarter,106-112.

Medvitz, Albert G., Alvin D. Sokolow and CathyLemp, eds. California Farmland and UrbanPressures: Statewide and Regional Perspectives,University of California, Agricultural IssuesCenter, CA.

Sherman, Robin L., Suzanne Milshaw, Robert C.Wagner and Julia Freedgood. 1998. Investing inthe Future of Agriculture: The MassachusettsFarmland Protection Program and the Perma-nence Syndrome. American Farmland Trust,Northhampton, MA.

Sokolow, Alvin D. 1999. “Variations in LocalFarmland Protection Policy: The Central Valleyand the North Bay.” Pp. 141-160, CaliforniaFarmland and Urban Pressures: Statewide andRegional Perspectives, edited by Albert G.Medvitz, Alvin D. Sokolow and Cathy Lemp.University of California, Agricultural IssuesCenter, CA.

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and OpenSpace District. 1999. Protected Forever,Spring. Santa Rosa, CA.

Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and OpenSpace District. 1999. SCAPOSD Land RightsInventory, January 11. Santa Rosa, CA.

Vink, Erik. 1999. “Farmland Conservation in thePrivate Sector: Land Trusts and ConservationEasements.” Pp. 89-99, California Farmlandand Urban Pressures: Statewide and RegionalPerspectives, edited by Albert G. Medvitz, AlvinD. Sokolow and Cathy Lemp. University ofCalifornia, Agricultural Issues Center, CA.

Yolo Land Trust. n.d. A Guide to Agricultural andOpen Space Conservation Easements. Wood-land, CA.

REFERENCES

49

Appendix ALANDOWNER INTERVIEWS - Phone Survey

be a convenient time to call. Do you have about 20 minutes to answer some questions?......... All of yourcomments will be confidential on our part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Confirm info about size of easement purchase. Were you the owner at that time?

2. What can you tell me about other characteristics of the parcel?—Current use? —% agriculture (by acres)? —% different ag commodities?

3. Do you farm the land yourself? —other members of your family? —lease to others?

4. How many farmland acres do you own in total? How many do you operate as a renter?

5. Was your residence located on the parcel at the time of the sale? Currently?—If not, where did/do you live?

6. Do you consider yourself a full-time farmer? —If not, what is your occupation?—What % of your family income comes from farming?—Who are all the owners? Ages—you and other owners?

7. How long have you been farming this land?—How many years has this land been in your family? —Number of generations?—Number of children. How many involved in agriculture?

8. Why did you sell the easement?

9. Looking ahead 10 years or more—are there likely to be any changes in the ownership or operation of this parcel?

—Do you expect any of your children or other relatives to take over from you?

10. Do you contemplate making any changes in the use of the parcel?—Type or mix of the commodities produced?—Improvements to the farm? What kind?

11. Where is the parcel located? How far from the nearest urban development?—Where is that? City or unincorporated area?—Is urbanization moving in this direction? —Is your parcel affected by this?—How far from nonfarm rural residences?—Any recent activity in lot splits on nearby farms for residential purposes?

12. Have you had opportunities in the recent past (before selling the easement) to develop, or sell theparcel for development? What happened?

50

13. What is the current zoning for the parcel?—Is it under a Williamson Act contract? —Any other land use restrictions on the parcel?

14. In your view what is the purpose of the MALT/Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation andOpen Space Program/Yolo Land Trust? —Has it been a successful program? —Anysuggestions as to how it could be made more successful?

15. You know that the agency is responsible for monitoring the use of your parcel and others to ensurethat it is consistent with the terms of the easement:—What has been your experience with the monitoring? If not OK—what specific problems?—Has the monitoring affected your agricultural operation in any way?

16. In your view, is there a problem in Marin/Sonoma/Yolo County about the development of farm-land? How serious— (a) very, (b) moderately so, (c) not a big problem—Are county and city policies helping to preserve farmland here? Or not?—Specific policies that are working or not working?—What sorts of policies should be emphasized?

Thank you.

51

Appendix BIN-PERSON LANDOWNER INTERVIEWS - Original Owner

I. Expand On Reasons for Participation

a. You told us in the phone conversation that you sold the easement because ____________. Can you elaborate on that?

b. Do you have a personal attachment to this land? In what sense? How much a factor in the easement sale? How does this compare with economic/financial factors?

c. Was it an easy or hard decision to sell the easement?

d. At that time, did the decision to sell fit in with an overall strategy or plan for the farm?

II. Family Situation

a. What was the family situation at the time of the sale? —Estate issues?

b. How did the easement sale take care of these issues?

c. Other family members now involved in the operation ________ (from phone interview). Do they have an ownership stake? Or—will they receive an ownership stake in the future?

d. (if not clear from above) Is it likely that family members will continue to be involved in this farm far into the future?

e. What about the permanent (in perpetuity) status of the easement?—Did that concern you at the time of the sale?—Is it all positive—or does it have some negative aspects?—Is it possible that future owners would see perpetuity as an obstacle?

f. The easement sale gave you a one-time financial benefit –that won’t be repeated in the future. Could that be a problem for future owners?

III. Changes, Impacts on Farm Operations

a. How use easement money? —probe for (1) debt repayment; (2) farm investment—what kind; (3) personal or family use.

b. Any changes in farm operations since the sale? Due to having the easement in place?—in mix of commodities produced—bought new equipment or other improvements?—management, marketing, conservation practices?—bought more land?

52

c. Change in profitability of the farm operation? In income?

d. Ten years from now–what is likely to be different in the farm operation?

IV. Contact with Program

a. What led to your decision to participate? How learn about program—sources of informa- tion?

b. Did you talk to others—neighbors, friends, other farmland owners? Previous easement sellers?

c. Did you initially contact the program? Or did they contact you? What happened?

d. From first contact to signing—how long a period? What happened to move it along or slow it down?

e. What was your experience in negotiating price and other terms?

f. Did you get a “fair” price in your view?

g. Did you get sufficient information about details and the consequences of the easement?—From who?—What major questions did you have?—Areas where not get sufficient information?

h. Has your experience in selling the easement influenced neighbors or other landowners to participate in the program? Have you talked to others about it?

V. Views of Program as Landowner

a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the program as a participating landowner? Why?

b. Specific criticisms? Specific good points?

c. What specific changes would you make in the program?

d. What kind of contact do you have with MALT/Open Space District? How often?

e. How does (MALT/Open Space District) monitor the easement?

f. Are you familiar with all the legal terms of the easement?

g. Can you put additional housing on the parcel?

h. Do you feel you have lost some control over your land? How?—Does the easement prevent you from using your land in any ways you would want?

i. Based on your experience, if you had to do it over again would you apply for an easement today?

53

VI. Impact, Effectiveness of Program

a. In your view, what is the program’s purpose? How well is this being accomplished?

b. In preserving farmland here in ______ ? In helping the viability of local agriculture?

c. Has it effected urbanization here? Its rate or direction?

d. How do you compare the effectiveness of easements with other protection techniques?

e. In the absence of this program, what would be different here?

f. Considering the program’s purpose, what kinds of parcels should get priority for easement purchases?

g. What about location—where should easements be placed?

h. In your view, what is the more important objective of protecting farmland?(a) For agricultural production, or (b) for open space?

i. Are the two objectives compatible or incompatible?

54

Appendix CIN-PERSON LANDOWNER INTERVIEWS - Later Purchaser

I. Reasons for purchase

a. Why did you purchase the land?

b. How did the easement affect your decision? How did it affect the price?

c. Other family members now involved in the operation ________ (from phone interview). Do they have an ownership stake? Or—will they receive an ownership stake in the future?

d. What do you see as the long-term effect of the easement on future family involvement?

e. What about the permanent (in perpetuity) status of the easement?—Did that concern you at the time of the sale?—Is it all positive—or does it have some negative aspects?—Is it possible that future owners would see perpetuity as an obstacle?

II. Changes in Farm

a. Have you made any changes in farm operations since the purchase?—in mix of commodities produced—bought new equipment or other improvements?—management, marketing, conservation practices?—bought more land?Due to having the easement in place?

b. Change in profitability of the farm operation? In income?

c. Likely future changes? Ten years from now—what is likely to be different?

III. Views of Program as Landowner

a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the program as a participating landowner? Why?

b. Specific criticisms? Specific good points?

c. What specific changes would you make in the program?

d. What kind of contact do you have with MALT/Open Space District? How often?

e. How does (MALT/Open Space District) monitor the easement?

f. Are you familiar with all the legal terms of the easement?

g. Can you put additional housing on the parcel?

55

h. Do you feel you have limited control over your land? How?—Does the easement prevent you from using your land in the ways you would want?

i. Based on your experience, if you had to do it over again would you purchase land under easement today?

VI. Impact, Effectiveness of Program

a. In your view, what is the program’s purpose? How well is this being accomplished?

b. In preserving farmland here in ______ ? In helping the viability of local agriculture?

c. Has it effected urbanization here? Its rate or direction?

d. How do you compare the effectiveness of easements with other protection techniques?

e. In the absence of this program, what would be different here?

f. Considering the program’s purpose, what kinds of parcels should get priority for easement purchases?

g. What about location—where should easements be placed?

h. In your view, what is the more important objective of protecting farmland?(a) For agricultural production, or (b) for open space?

i. Are the two objectives compatible or incompatible?

56