The debate over solar and farmland has reached Washington, D.C., and it deserves to be taken seriously.
Americans are right to care about the future of our farmland. Productive farmland is a strategic national asset, and no one wants to see it disappear. The question isn’t whether we should protect farmland. It’s how. If Washington is serious about preserving working farms, it should focus on giving farmers more tools to adapt, not taking away one that can help keep their operations viable.
Solar has become an easy target in the farmland debate. I get it. Change makes folks uncomfortable, especially when a familiar field on your drive home suddenly looks different.
But what looks different from the road may be what allows a family farm to survive another generation.
The facts tell a very different story. Solar’s actual land footprint is remarkably small. New analysis shows that solar energy occupies just 0.04% of total U.S. land and 0.07% of U.S. prime farmland. There is not a single state in America where solar is sited on more than 0.5% of prime farmland. In fact, golf courses use nearly three times as much prime farmland as solar, while ever-expanding suburban developments since 2014 use nearly six times more.
There is another important distinction Washington should not ignore. A solar project is fundamentally different from a subdivision or shopping center. The farmer keeps ownership of the land, earns steady income, and preserves options for the future. The lease eventually ends. The project can be removed.
When farmland is sold for housing developments or commercial projects, that land is often gone from agriculture for good. Roads are cut, foundations are poured, and the land is carved up in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.
Solar development should still be done carefully. Not every piece of farmland is appropriate for solar, and not every proposal deserves approval. Local concerns should not be brushed aside, and other forms of development certainly have benefits.
Communities need homes, roads, businesses, and jobs, and residents deserve a voice in how land around them is used. Developers should work hand in hand with landowners throughout the development of a project, landowners should understand their contracts, and decommissioning requirements should be taken seriously.
But responsible standards are not the same as blanket restrictions. Farmland policy should recognize the difference between development that permanently converts land and projects that preserve future options for farmers and landowners.
That matters because many farm families are already making hard decisions about how to keep their operations going. Commodity prices fluctuate. Input costs rise. Weather is unpredictable. Younger generations face steep barriers to keeping family farms alive. For some landowners, a solar lease can provide reliable income that helps keep the rest of the farm operable and, more importantly, in the family.
Taking that option away does not protect farmers. It limits them.
America also needs more electricity. Keeping farms viable and producing more American energy are not competing goals. In many communities, they’re complementary ones.
New manufacturing facilities, data centers, small businesses, homes, and farms all depend on reliable and affordable power. If we want to build things in America, compete with China, strengthen our grid, and support long-term economic growth, we will need more energy infrastructure, not less.
Solar is one part of meeting that demand, and it can support rural communities through lease payments, local tax revenue, construction jobs, and new investment.
We shouldn’t have to choose between protecting farmland and producing American energy. We can do both. We can protect productive agricultural land, respect local decision-making, insist on responsible siting, and still recognize that farmers deserve the freedom to make practical decisions about their own property.
OPINION: WE BEAT SCREWWORM ONCE BEFORE. THE TOOL SITTING ON THE SHELF COULD DO IT AGAIN
The data are clear. Solar occupies a tiny fraction of American farmland, while other forms of development permanently convert far more land with far less scrutiny. If Washington wants to protect farmland, it should focus on helping farmers stay on their land, not taking away one of the tools that can help them do it.
A solar lease is not a subdivision. Washington should not treat farmers trying to hold on to their land like developers paving it over for good.
Robert Romano is executive director of Americans for Limited Government and the Americans for Limited Government Foundation.