The nation’s most productive farming region is undergoing a rapid land use transition under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Yet the San Joaquin Valley has struggled to build consensus on a path forward for repurposing fallowed farmland.
Farmers are searching for options to create more flexibility with their water management to maintain the economic viability of their operations. Large-scale solar developers, meanwhile, have been eyeing opportunities to build out massive renewable energy projects to help the state meet its climate goals. At the center of those issues is the Williamson Act, a 1965 law recognized as California’s most powerful tool for protecting farms from urban encroachment.
The program enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use for a minimum of 10 years, according to the California Department of Conservation.
To ease the process for farmers to open up the conservation easements for solar generation, Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula of Fresno is proposing to loosen the penalties for ending Williamson Act contracts. He has authored Assembly Bill 2528 to streamline the cancellation process, enabling developers to quickly site energy infrastructure on water-constrained parcels.
The Western Growers Association (WGA) is backing the measure, reasoning that it would provide farmers with alternative economic opportunities while maintaining the value of the land. Proponents argue that without AB 2528 the fallowed land would sit idle for 10 years or more until the contract expires.
“We believe this is a win-win for locals, farmers and the state,” said Gail Delihant, senior director for governmental affairs at WGA, during the first committee hearing on the bill in April.
Delihant pointed to the challenging water dynamic that growers face. State and federal agencies have set water deliveries at 40% of the contracted amounts, despite an above-average snowpack and full reservoirs throughout the state. New limits are impacting water supplies above ground as well as below. Delihant reported that some groundwater sustainability agencies are leveling fees of up to $2,100 per acre-foot on pumpers and said that farmers cannot grow food at that rate.
Gail Delihant, Western GrowersWhile the water crisis has hit a crossroads, the energy industry is warning of difficult decisions ahead for building out California’s solar infrastructure. Lobbying on behalf of the Large-scale Solar Association, Shannon Eddy told lawmakers the state must triple the size of its grid in 20 years—along a similar timeline to SGMA—requiring up to 700,000 acres of additional land, preferably in large contiguous areas with low species conflict.
“Most of the easy sites are taken,” said Eddy. “We're running out of space.”
She argued that dealing with Williamson Act cancellations adds unnecessary costs, delays and complexities for project developers.
Also supporting the measure were the Agricultural Council of California, Almond Alliance and California Association of Winegrape Growers, along with several solar trade associations.
Standing in opposition to AB 2528, the California Farm Bureau contends that relaxing the rules for cancellations is a slippery slope that could weaken the Williamson Act overall.
“It's been always a bright line for the California Farm Bureau to protect the Williamson Act,” said Alexandra Biering, the organization’s water policy advocate. “We don't take changes to that lightly.”
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
Biering agreed on the potential need to build more flexibility into the act but said AB 2528 is not the bill to do that. In particular, she worried about leaving GSAs and water districts out of the process and wanted to tighten certain provisions she felt were too vague. The proposal would allow landowners to double dip, for example, declaring their land is water deficient to avoid the cancellation fees while retaining the water allocation and then selling the land, she explained.
The act currently charges a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% of the fair market value of the land and a 25% cancellation fee for Farmland Security Zone contracts.
Peter Ansel, who advocates on land use and energy at the Farm Bureau, was skeptical of the need for developing farmland.
“We have real concerns that the solar industry hasn't exhausted all the places where they could potentially build in the Central Valley,” said Ansel.
He pointed to opportunities with rooftop solar and noted that earlier in April Gov. Gavin Newsom took part in a press conference at the Delta-Mendota Canal to tout state and federal spending for covering potentially thousands of miles of canals with solar panels to help the state meet its energy needs.
Bowing to the pressure, Arambula vowed to amend the bill to focus strictly on basins in the San Joaquin Valley that are moderately to critically overdrafted and have no economic viability for remaining in production.
But Ansel warned that lands with Williamson Act contracts contain Class 1 soils, which are some of the most fertile on the planet.
“We have not seen any studies that show there's insufficient nonprime ag lands in the valley to site these projects,” he said.
In a subsequent hearing with the Assembly Agriculture Committee, Colusa County Supervisor Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith stressed that counties have been “at the forefront of protecting our unique agricultural lands,” often at great cost.
“But when large-scale development interests come barreling in our direction, there's only so much our locals can do to withstand the pressure to sell and quit agriculture,” said Smith. “Big solar won't be the last special interest knocking at your door looking to sweep up these precious lands.”
Rural County Representatives of California also opposes the bill, alongside the Monterey and Tulare county farm bureaus.
Delihant sought to ease the concerns by assuring lawmakers that the solar panels are designed to be easily removed.
“It's not like you put them on there forever,” she said.
Adding to that argument, Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur of Hollywood said the projects would not alter the land in any irreversible way and that they would draw “opportunities for good, high-paying jobs” to replace the farm work.
While no lawmakers have voted against the bill, several have abstained from voting due to the criticism, though it passed both committees.
Asm. Damon Connolly of San Rafael agreed on the need to scale up solar in rural regions but said the bill is moving too broadly and too quickly.
“I'm very apprehensive of opening up a can of worms,” added Asm. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Winters. “We don't know where it's going to take us.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
