Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Energy Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Measure to enable solar development on water‑constrained Williamson Act land draws sharp debate
Summary
AB 1156 would allow temporary suspensions of Williamson Act contracts for solar projects on water‑constrained parcels, with mandatory community benefits and environmental review; supporters say it provides options for struggling farmland, opponents warn of erosion of protections for prime agricultural land.
Assemblymember presenting AB 11 56 described the bill as an update to California's solar use easement statute that would provide a voluntary, locally driven path for land under Williamson Act contracts to host large‑scale solar projects when water constraints make farming impracticable. The author said the program would suspend (not cancel) Williamson Act contracts for the length of the solar project, require a full CEQA review, mandatory community benefits above any local requirements, and ensure projects pay full property taxes to counties during the term.
Supporters described the measure as a way to preserve value on land that may otherwise sit fallowed, to generate local revenues, and to support the state’s clean energy goals. Cameron Morris, a landowner, and representatives of the Large Scale Solar Association and several renewable‑energy firms testified the easement option would be voluntary, subject to local approval, and include remediation bonds to return land to production when projects end.
Opponents, including the California Farm Bureau, American Farmland Trust and other agricultural groups, said the bill still ‘‘expands solar use easements to prime ag land at no cost to cancel the contract’’ and would undermine the Williamson Act. The Farm Bureau described the legislation as an ‘‘attack on the stability of the Williamson Act,’’ arguing cancellation payments that recoup reduced property taxes are not the same as workforce or community benefit funds and that the bill’s definitions of ‘‘insufficient water supply’’ and ‘‘commercial viability’’ need tightening.
Committee discussion centered on competing imperatives: protecting prime agricultural soils and preserving the Williamson Act on one hand, and offering landowners and rural communities an optional tool to generate revenue and support renewable energy on the other. Several senators urged more specific definitions and tighter siting and mitigation standards; the author said committee amendments strengthened the community benefit provisions, clarified water constraint definitions and required the state to make a determination before prime farmland could be eligible.
Outcome: The committee passed AB 11 56 as amended to the Committee on Environmental Quality. The committee recorded votes and some abstentions during discussion; the file summary later shows the bill moved forward and was reported out of the committee.
