LOIS HENRY: The great Central Valley solar rush is on
| Tuesday, Nov 15 2011 07:36 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Nov 15 2011 10:04 PM
Listen to KERN 1180 AM from 9 to 10 a.m. Monday through Friday when Californian staffers discuss this issue and others. You can get your two cents in by calling 842-KERN. Lois Henry hosts every Wednesday. To listen to archived shows, visit www.bakersfield.com/CalifornianRadio
You'd think the housing bust would at least give the valley's precious farm land a break from the constant pressure of development.
But no.
Instead of houses, now it's armies of solar panels that are threatening to crowd out farming.
The conflict has been building throughout the Central Valley over the last year, even sparking a lawsuit against the Fresno County Board of Supervisors by the California Farm Bureau Federation last month.
Closer to home, the issue came to a head Tuesday at the Kern County Board of Supervisor's meeting.
I gotta give Supes credit for trying to find a balance to protect farm land, not step on private property rights and welcome new industry under the right circumstances.
I think they should have erred a bit more on the side of farmland protection, but we have some time to see how this develops as county staff will come back with a solid policy proposal in March.
A slew of tax incentives and federal stimulus dollars have made solar energy production both increasingly attractive and feasible in recent years, igniting what had been the sleepy cousin of renewable energy.
Even more recently, PG&E worked a deal with the California Public Utilities Commission to fast track large scale solar energy facilities that could plug directly into utility substations throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
Hence, the great Central Valley solar rush is on.
Neither PG&E, nor the PUC talked to local governments about how this might affect our communities, of course. As usual, we're left with the headache.
Kern County planners suddenly found themselves with 32 proposals for solar power generation facilities encompassing 17,000 acres. About 9,000 of those acres are considered prime farmland.
After a number of farmers raised red flags about the possibility of so much land going out of production, county planners took a step back and outlined the problem for Supervisors.
Aside from the obvious issues of private property rights, there's also the ticklish issue of what's really "prime" farmland.
That definition can be squishy.
If a solar company leases a tract of previously productive farmland and cancels the water contract, does the land suddenly become "unprime" because it doesn't have water?
As Supervisor Mike Maggard pointed out, the county needs its own clear definition of what makes farm land prime so as not to be manipulated.
Conversely, we wouldn't want to miss an opportunity due to arcane definitions.
The State Department of Conservation may designate land as "prime" because IF it had water, it could be.
Such was the case with 6,000 acres near Maricopa. Except the acreage didn't have water and had no hope of getting water so the land wasn't prime for anything except maybe jackrabbits.
A solar company, however, found it very prime and once the land's Williamson Act contract was canceled, Supervisors OK'd a 700 megawatt facility last March.
Williamson Act contracts allow farmers to pay reduced property taxes for not developing their land. Kern's policy is that in order to convert to a solar facility any Williamson Act contracts must first be canceled, which is good because solar facilities already get a break on property taxes.
Other counties haven't been so wise. (Alleged violations of the Williamson Act are at the crux of the California Farm Bureau's suit against Fresno County.)
That doesn't mean Kern is unfriendly to solar power generation.
The county has given the green light to 1,444 combined megawatts from five different solar projects from October 2010 to present. Not to mention our many, many wind energy projects.
Clearly we've welcomed alternative energy.
But I agree with Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt that the county needs to be watchful and make sure projects are in the right places.
Part of the reason a lot of these new solar projects are looking to prime farm land in places like Arvin is because the tracts are close to the substations I mentioned earlier that PG&E made available. (Oh PG&E, must you always use your powers for evil? Sigh.)
OK, I understand needing to make projects economically feasible. And, yes, these projects bring some temporary construction jobs.
But as Oviatt told me, that has to be balanced against what they would take away.
Such as highly productive farm land, which can churn $3,000 to $4,000 per acre back into the local economy via permanent jobs, seed, fertilizer, vehicle purchase and repairs, etc., according to farmers Ron and Shaé Lehr. The dad and daughter duo farm in the Arvin/Edison area.
They find themselves in a somewhat awkward position opposing solar on productive ag land even as they're both staunch private property rights advocates who support solar energy. But they're also in danger of being priced out of land they've leased for decades.
Their solution is to clearly relegate large scale solar facilities to the many, many acres of marginal land that can't be farmed.
Instead, Supervisors instructed Oviatt to come up with a policy "leaning toward" more guidelines but that still allows Supervisors to look at each project individually.
That may be the only tightrope the county can use in this confict.
We'll just have to keep an eye out to make sure they don't trip.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com Lois Henry
