Dear Citizens and Elected Officials:
Introduction:
I am hoping that what follows below — an editorial by a solar industry advocate in Maryland, and my own reaction to it — will be relevant to many other Eastern states.
In far Western Maryland, Allegany and Garrett counties, places which are more rural red state Trump country than purple state Maryland in general, we also have, in addition to farmland, thousands of acres of partially restored (and not so restored) former coal mine sites. Yet we have yet to land a major solar generating facility, despite state laws and regulation that would seem to encourage efforts like “community solar” and an ambitious state timetable for more alternative energy.
So this morning, I am sharing a brief letter I sent to some good fellow citizens working on this issue, trying to get more solar in a region built on coal, with Governor Larry Hogan, the Republican moderate, pushing more extensive dependence on fracked gas. And not appointing any conservationists to his newly created solar siting Board.
And after my own comments, I’m posting the full text of the editorial which triggered it. To complete the picture for Kossacks, I’ve been immersed over the past week or so in researching the rural/ag policies of the Sanders and Warren campaigns. The more I read, the more I felt I needed context and perspective, to fit them into the flow of American ag policy history, from at least the New Deal to the present. So this transcends the local and even the purely agricultural. I’ve long maintained that the history of American agriculture, of farms and farming, is a great window into the nature of capitalism itself, all its glories of production, and all the pain and consequences of the costs of its “creative destruction”: in this case, of small farmers themselves — and to the health of the Nature which makes it all possible. And to its great hypocrisies: how dependent it has been on government subsidies, of all types. And no segment of the economy has outdone American agriculture, or farmers, in federal and state support programs, all the while proclaiming its rugged Jeffersonian individualism and denouncing government “regulations.”
Ok, have a good read…
best,
Bill of Rights,
Frostburg, MD
Good morning. It's hard to disagree with this editorial found below. I do get tired of the at least partly insincere desire to protect farmland, thrown up as an obstacle to solar. Never underestimate the creative imagination of NIMBY's. To be clear: we should not lose any of the top quality soils to solar; for the poorest soils in low productivity ag use, that's another story. And there is another way to look at our "farm" situation.
If it's ever a question of other related land uses, let's take a look at the "nature" of suburban lawns, the "Crabgrass Frontier," whose acreage is staggering. In the Chesapeake Bay Watershed alone, it's a whopping 3.8 million acres, which far exceeds the total "official" farmland acreage in the whole state, which in 2012 was 2,030,745 acres, in 12,256 farms averaging 166 acres in size. https://chesapeakestormwater.net/2009/06/the-grass-crop-of-the-chesapeake-bay-watershed/
Two additional perspectives: the way lawns are handled, they are pollution sources of both nutrients and toxins. I don't have to explain that further to this audience. Cleared of those maltreatments, the vast extent of suburban lawns means we should never have to worry about having enough land, in theory or practice, to feed this nation, and others too. And, although it will be hard and more expensive to link up individual modest solar fields potentially sited on them, the scope of this suburban lawn acreage means that, in a crisis or in answering the question, is there "room for solar?"...just look at those acreage figures.
One of the difficulties in talking about agriculture, food and pollution is, again, the sheer sentimentality surrounding the words farms and farmers. As part of my research, background into comparing the ag policies of Sanders vs Warren, I came across this mainstream analysis (below) of American farm policy since the New Deal. It comes from the Clinton era, and further strips away the illusions surrounding those heritage words.
Its frame of analysis is mainstream economics, the nature of public interventions into supply and demand dynamics, which are more complex than just those two words can convey. (Consumers and processors, and distributors all have a say...but not in proportion to their numbers...) It does not offer a Wendell Berry perspective (hardly, quite an understatement) and it is chronologically out of step with the later rise of the organic, sustainable farming movement. But that broad and diverse movement has lost out, mostly, in the grand political power struggles which shape our major farm bills: the bell-weather word "rigged" comes to mind...but if only the votes of the 2-3 million actual farmers count, alternative ag would lose anyhow.
So the dynamics in this Federal Reserve article covering the years 1933-1996, do address the main forces alternative ag is still losing too. And explains why: in general, family farms are better off than the national median income and have access to, or drive, powerful lobbies, like the Farm Bureau, (and probably are one source for the shock troops of the Tea Party. )
A shock to me, and... (good local alternative farmer name deleted) please take note of this for what it is worth, the author, an ag economist, of whom I've met quite a few, maintains that the driver of the Conservation Reserve Program was the great land and price deflation in the farming "heartland" in 1985-1986, not concern for soil practices and impacts on Nature. What do we have here? A Federal Reserve mainstreamer sounding like any vulgar old Marxist in his economic determinism. I'll stop here. This is a good basic read, still:
Bill of Rights
Editor’s Note:
And here is the solar “editorial” which triggered my response: it appeared just one day ago at the Maryland policy/issues “aggregator” site, MD Matters, put together by a consortium of state reporters working for different publications.
“Climate change poses an existential threat to our Bay, so I was shocked to read the Chesapeake Bay Foundation calling to slam the brakes on clean energy in Maryland [ Opinion: Md. Needs Clear Guidelines on Where to Site Solar Installations, 9/16 ].By CBF’s own metrics, solar is one of the most effective ways of curbing air pollution endangering the Bay, its tributaries, and aquatic life. Furthermore, existing laws ensure responsible solar siting in Maryland, and any attempts by the governor to dictate which properties can and cannot invest in solar will only slow our transition away from fossil fuels.
When describing “What is Killing the Bay?” CBF cites the excessive nutrients from “fertilizers, wastewater, septic tank discharges, air pollution, and runoff from farms, cities, and suburbs.” Real estate development, agricultural runoff, industrial activity, and power plant emissions all threaten our Bay’s ecosystem. But by any measure, solar deployment yields a small fraction of the environmental impact of each of these activities.
Furthermore, any suggestion responsible solar development is a threat to farmland is simply not true. Less than 1% of farmland is expected to host solar through 2030, and these projects require full consent and participation of the landowner. Furthermore, as a condition of permitting, solar projects must be able to return the land to its original use after they are decommissioned. Thus, landowners have the option to farm the land again if they so choose, enabling farmers to preserve a parcel of their land for a generation while diversifying their revenue sources.
Clearcutting of forests cited by CBF is not typical among solar developers in Maryland, as it is expensive and requires compliance with the state Forest Conservation Act. Solar projects are required to permanently conserve or reforest any land taken out of agricultural production.
On the Eastern Shore, projects will conserve or plant more than 200 acres combined over the next three years. Many solar developers conscientiously integrate abundant pollinator-friendly meadows into their projects.
This is further evidence that current laws governing responsible solar development are working well. The Georgetown project in Charles County is the exception that proves this rule. Maryland’s Department of the Environment denied the permit because the project did not meet existing standards on ecological stewardship. So why is the Chesapeake Bay Foundation calling for a statewide study, when federal, state and local laws are regulating the industry well?
Finally, if the solar industry meets the state’s target of 14.5% of generation by 2030, acreage used will still be a fraction of ag land counties have set aside for real estate development. Based on their comprehensive zoning plans, Maryland counties have zoned approximately 150,000 acres of current cropland for residential and commercial real estate development. This is 10 times the acreage of future utility-scale solar projects. And unlike real estate development, solar does not lead to increased air, water, noise or light pollution, and does not require expensive infrastructure like sewer lines, nor does it create expansive impervious surfaces that create stormwater concerns.
Meeting Maryland’s solar targets will require giving solar developers the flexibility to find locations on the state’s transmission grid that have room for new electric generation. Most of those locations have already been identified and are few and far between.
But even if the reality of the state’s limited transmission infrastructure requires solar farms to be sited primarily on ag land, it would require less than 1% of Maryland’s ag land through 2030.
If Maryland’s environmentally-minded leaders are truly concerned about the loss of farmland, their focus on solar misses the primary threats to farmland statewide. Environmental leaders like CBF who care about climate change should recognize that solar development will have a minimal impact on the state’s farmland through 2030 while helping reduce nutrient load in our waterways and, most importantly, combating the climate crisis.
Thus, if you want good neighbors for Bay, look no further than our clean energy resources.
— DAVID MURRAY
The writer is executive director of MDV-SEIA, the solar industry association for Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Washington, D.C.