California’s dry farmland is ideal for solar. Big Ag stands in the way | Opinion

The Trump administration has all but declared war on wind and solar projects, making it more important than ever for states to promote clean energy.

That’s why it’s disappointing that California would let an important solar bill languish.

Assembly Bill 1156, authored by Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, passed both the Assembly and Senate last year, but was shelved in September, following objections from the California Farm Bureau and other organizations.

Wicks’s bill would make it easier to allow unproductive farmland — primarily San Joaquin Valley acreage subject to water restrictions — to be leased for commercial solar development and battery storage without incurring the usual financial penalties for land covered under the Williamson Act.

That legislation gives farmers a tax break if they agree to keep their acreage in agriculture. Prematurely canceling a Williamson Act contract can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. Sponsored by the Large-Scale Solar Association, AB 1156 would suspend — rather than cancel — contracts, so no fees would apply.

The bill is similar to earlier legislation that cut the cancellation fee in half for solar conversions, but with another notable difference — it explicitly lists water scarcity as a qualifying reason to plant solar panels on farmland.

That has the Farm Bureau and other ag groups worried that it will be far too easy to blanket prime land with solar panels.

Among other amendments, opponents of the bill are seeking a clear definition of water scarcity. They claim the current definition includes “literally every parcel of land that takes a water delivery from the State Water Project or the Central Valley Project.”

‘This is barren ground. It’s dirt’

AB 1156 can help California meet clean energy goals, while offering a path forward for farmers like Cameron Moors who are being pushed to the brink.

He raises row crops — including onions, parsley and cotton — on 648 acres in rural Fresno County. But with looming water restrictions, he says farming is not a viable, long-term solution for him, and because his property is so remote, it’s not suitable for housing or other permanent development.

“We’re out in the middle of nowhere,” Moors said. “This is barren ground. It’s dirt.”

Solar development, he points out, offers flexibility. Should water become available down the road, panels can be removed to allow a return to farming when the solar contract ends, typically in 20 to 25 years.

There’s also a major financial incentive for local governments. With the Williamson Act suspended, land will be reassessed, potentially generating millions of dollars in property taxes for local governments in the San Joaquin Valley.

AB 1156 also requires that solar companies enter into community benefit agreements that can finance local programs such as water conservation, job training and assistance to displaced farmworkers.

Let them plant ... agave?

That’s not good enough for opponents of the bill.

In a July 2025 letter co-written with California Cattlemen’s Association, the Farm Bureau asks for proof that Williamson Act land cannot sustain any commercially viable crop. It points to agave — primarily grown for liquor and sweeteners — as a plant that requires very little water.

There are financial asks as well, including requiring bonding to ensure that solar installations are cleaned up at the end of their life span, and keeping the cancellation fee where it is, rather than forgiving it entirely.

A coalition of other farming organizations proposes that project developers be required to pay a specific amount in community benefit fees instead of leaving it open to negotiation.

As many as 900,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland could be fallowed

We respect these organizations’ dedication to protecting California’s ag lands, but property owners who can prove farming is no longer financially feasible should have the option of turning to solar, especially in this era of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act — or SGMA. That legislation aims to bring depleted groundwater basins into balance, which means farmers face pumping reductions.

To comply with SGMA, the California Public Policy Institute predicts that under a worst-case scenario, as many as 900,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland could be fallowed by 2040, though farming advocacy groups say there are ways to avoid mass retirement of farmland.

Switching to drought-tolerant crops like agave is one, but that’s a partial solution at best.

Ideally, solar and farming interests will find common ground and deliver an amended bill. With a deadline looming, that should be sooner rather than later.

Solar projects that break ground by July 4, 2026, still qualify for investment tax credits under Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. After that, the credits go away — and depending on market conditions, that could increase costs for ratepayers.

AB 1156 is a sensible measure. It should not be derailed by overly zealous farming interests unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances.

Farmland needs protecting, but allowing acreage to sit idle or under-utilized when it could provide clean energy is self-defeating for a state committed to fighting climate change — even as the federal government reverses course.

If Gov. Newsom is serious about meeting the state’s clean energy goals, he will sign AB 1156.

This story was originally published February 15, 2026 at 5:00 AM.