Thoughts on the Proposed Plan
The surveys seemed extremely biased toward renewable energy and data centers, and yet residents were aware enough to indicate agriculture was one of the top priorities that should be addressed, as indicated in the Executive Summary #3 on page 6.
Renewable energy was more a concern than a consideration, and yet it gets it its own whole chapter, chapter 5 in the plan.
In the Community Profile on page 15, chapter 2 says the county faces increasing pressures related to (besides housing, infrastructure, etc.) saturation and continuation of large scale renewable energy projects. Saturation? Continuation? What a scary thought.
Then in chapter 2.2 it says renewable energy projects have become increasingly influential in land use discussions. By whom? Would that be the energy companies trying to persuade the farmers to lease their land?
Then in chapter 2.4 it says emerging large scale renewable energy proposals are influencing, influencing, (the word should be bullying) land use, infrastructure needs, and community expectations. And yet Chapter 2.5 still reiterates that agriculture remains central. It then talks about farmer vulnerability when parcels are converted to non-agricultural uses which is appropriately listed under economic pressures.
At least on page 23 chapter 3.2 it acknowledges that residents are concerned about farmland conversions, aquifers, water systems, and the pressures from energy development. This is also shown on page 24 chapter 3.4.
Under chapter 3.3 on page 24 Agriculture vs Solar Siting and Regulatory Flexibility vs Predictability, there is some word play going on, with interchangeable words like farmers and agricultural operators and also renewable energy developers and just plain developers.
They look redundant and yet hide the fact that this is, for sure, NOT all farmers, and most of the farmers along with most residents oppose these large scale installations as shown in your surveys.
All this concern over the farmland, and yet when we get to page 26 chapter 4, all of a sudden, the vision switches to embracing innovation in energy and industry, and openness to new technologies such as renewable energy. Whether this is guided by community standards or not, this is a surprise since embracing it and openness to it is not really mentioned anywhere else.
Chapter 4.3 goal 1 objective 1.1 and 1.2 move on as if these large scale projects are already approved and to be built, ignoring the residents’ wishes. This is very disconcerting. At least goal 3 includes what is most important to the community which is protecting farmland, but it is seconded by renewable energy.
Chapter 5 Land Use Framework. I was hoping for some guidance to the concerns the farming community has as outlined in the survey. But no! Page 33 under Future Land Use categories, agriculture has been redefined to include renewable energy facilities. How is that agriculture? That needs its own category! Agriculture and energy are two separate things and need to be kept separate. Page 45 D needs to be corrected into two categories as well.
If there is an insistence on keeping these large scale energy projects in this plan, they would have to include insurance to surrounding areas for any damages from natural disasters, as was seen in the Wheatfield tornado which spread solar panel shards for miles. That could go on page 34 under Renewable Energy Compatibility Performance Standards.
Here is some confusing speak: Planning Topics Chapter 6.2 under Economic Development on page 37, a key issue is: “Opportunities in renewable energy and advanced industries tied to dual electric grid access.” What does that even mean? What opportunities?
Again, in chapter 6.3 renewable energy is lumped in the category of agriculture. This needs to be separated out. Agriculture/farming remains the defining land use! Anything else would need its own category. How do you propose all this green energy siting can be balanced with agriculture while protecting agricultural productivity in your policy direction on page 38?
On page 41 and page 43 it talks about defensibility. Are these companies that corrupt that they would take advantage of the communities for the chance to make money even if the communities do not want them in their lands? Of course they would. Better make it all very defensible.
Page 45 Agriculture and Energy, which should be two separate categories, only has one action for farmland. Plus, where is the Critical Path Strategy for agriculture, as we see how important agriculture is throughout this document.
Page 6 “Agriculture must remain strong.” Page 16 “Agriculture remains dominant land use.” Page 17 “Strong agricultural land base.” Page 18 “Agriculture remains central.” Page 27 “Goal 3 objective 3.1 “Protect farmland.” Page 38 “Agriculture remains the defining land use.” And page 38 “Protect agriculture productivity.”