Bill would make it easier to ‘plant’ solar panels on dry farmland. Great idea | Opinion

On paper, it sounds like a perfect trade-off: Take unproductive farmland — much of it located in California’s San Joaquin Valley — and replant it with acres of solar panels that can power hundreds of thousands of homes.

Except there’s a hitch.

A lot of that farmland is tied up in long-term Williamson Act contracts, which entitle owners to big property tax breaks as long as they keep their acreage in ag or open space.

Landowners can cancel their contracts prematurely, but they must pay a stiff penalty based on the value of their property. When the Maricopa Sun Solar Complex was built in Kern County several years ago, for example, the cancellation fee was nearly $800,000.

The state Legislature came to a (partial) rescue in 2011 by passing SB 618, which cut the cancellation fee in half for farmers who want to transition to solar. To qualify for the break, however, applicants must prove that the soil on their land can no longer sustain farming.

That program has not been a rousing success; over its first nine years, only three applicants pursued solar easements under SB 618, according to the state Department of Conservation.

Now, another bill, AB 1156, would expand eligibility to include land that can no longer be farmed due to water shortages.

The bill would also allow battery energy storage systems, but only if they’re paired with solar panels.

Williamson Act contracts would be suspended, rather than rescinded, so land owners would no longer have to pay a cancellation fee, although they would lose their ag land tax break.

Property would be reassessed at fair market value, resulting in significantly higher property tax bills that would raise more revenue for local agencies.

‘Little to no benefit for local communities’

It’s hard to see any downside to this legislation.

If land isn’t fit for farming and is too remote or otherwise unsuitable for much-needed housing development, using it to boost California’s clean energy production makes sense.

Yet there is opposition not just to this particular bill, but also to the very idea of converting farmland into solar production.

Last month, the Imperial Irrigation District asked the county Board of Supervisors to prohibit any additional solar development on farmland in Imperial County.

“More than 13,000 acres of Imperial Valley farmland have already been converted for solar energy development — projects that largely export electricity to urban centers like San Diego, providing little to no benefit for local communities,” the irrigation district’s Board of Directors said in a news release.

This is a silly criticism coming from Imperial. Many of its landowners, who happen to be farmers with pretty secure futures thanks to senior water rights, now export crops to hungry urban customers. There’s nothing wrong with some lands growing electrons instead, thanks to the same hot sun.

San Joaquin Valley faces water cutbacks

Against this backdrop, California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act — SGMA — looms large.

It requires that water agencies adopt groundwater basin sustainability plans to prevent overpumping. For the San Joaquin Valley, that will likely mean taking more than 500,000 acres of irrigated farmland out of production, according to the California Public Policy Institute.

“Some land probably won’t survive as farms at all,” The Sacramento Bee reported back in 2021.

SGMA isn’t the only challenge facing farmers.

Labor shortages have taken a toll, especially with the Trump administration targeting undocumented workers for deportation.

Certain crops have taken a beating. For example, with the demand for wine falling — partly due to health warnings about alcohol — some San Joaquin Valley vineyard owners are giving up on grapes; an estimated 30,000 acres are not being farmed, or only minimally cared for, according to The Fresno Bee.

Economic diversification

This all spells an uncertain future for those in the ag business who are barely hanging on.

Solar development is a viable alternative for them, and AB 1156 would help ease the transition while imposing safeguards to protect the community.

For one, the bill requires the state Department of Conservation to determine whether a parcel is eligible for a Williamson Act suspension, in consultation with the local groundwater agency. Also, every project would have to undergo environmental review, which could rule out properties with sensitive resources. Transmission capacity is another constraint; there is a limit to the amount of solar energy the grid can handle.

Also, farming communities could get a boost tailored to meet their needs. The bill allows local agencies to require solar companies to enter into community benefits agreements that could include donations to local schools and parks, habitat restoration, infrastructure improvements, job training and other amenities.

Bottom line: Solar development will not eliminate farming in regions like the San Joaquin Valley, but it can help agricultural areas diversify economically, while at the same time assisting the state in meeting its clean energy goals.

That’s critical, because despite what the Trump administration would have us believe, the climate crisis is real, and the state of California must follow through with its commitment to phase out fossil fuels.

This bill would help; lawmakers should approve AB 1156 and Gov. Gavin Newsom should sign it.

This story was originally published August 1, 2025 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Bill would make it easier to ‘plant’ solar panels on dry farmland. Great idea | Opinion."