Assembly committee advances bill to allow suspension of Williamson Act contracts for solar use easements

AB 1156, a bill that would allow landowners to suspend Williamson Act contracts and place solar projects on lands with insufficient water, passed the Assembly Agriculture subcommittee as amended and was referred to the Appropriations Committee by a 6-1 vote.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Diane Wicks, described AB 1156 as an update to California’s solar use easement statute intended to allow “suitable lands with significant water constraints to transition from a Williamson Act contract to a solar use easement for the development of renewable energy projects.” Wicks said the suspension would be temporary and that land could return to agricultural production if water conditions improve.

Wicks said the current program has produced few projects—state data cited in committee shows three projects permitted since 2011—and argued changes were needed so that landowners facing water loss have an additional, voluntary option. “This will provide an economic benefit to the community and to farmers that otherwise have very limited options,” Wicks said.

Supporters said the bill targets irrigated farmland becoming uneconomical because of water scarcity and could generate property tax revenue that would otherwise be lost. Shannon Eddy, executive director of the Large-Scale Solar Association, told the committee the measure provides “surgical fixes” enabling farmers to pause a Williamson Act contract, establish a solar use easement with local government approval, install a solar project and return the land to production if conditions permit. John Norwood, representing the Almond Alliance, said the bill “empowers landowners” to suspend rather than permanently forfeit agricultural protections.

Opponents, including Peter Ansell of the California Farm Bureau, warned the bill would remove a cancellation fee that currently applies when land exits Williamson Act protections early. Ansell said those fees “are not penalties” but repay a public investment in farmland preservation and that removing them could encourage speculative early withdrawals and weaken the Williamson Act’s incentives. John Kennedy of the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) said his organization has moved from opposition to support pending amendments that preserve local mitigation authority.

Several speakers urged stronger definitions and guardrails. Public commenters and some committee members pressed for clearer definitions of “commercially viable” and “insufficient water,” and raised concerns about expanding eligibility to prime farmland and lands of statewide importance. Assemblymember Jeff Gonzales voted against the motion, citing concerns; other members said they would continue working with the author on amendments to impose mandatory community benefits and to narrow definitions.

The committee’s action was recorded as “do pass as amended to appropriations.” Roll-call votes captured in the hearing record showed Soria, Alanis, Connolly, Hadwick, Ransom and Erwin voting yes; Jeff Gonzales voting no; one member recorded as not voting. The author committed to additional amendments addressing local mitigation authority, community benefits, and clearer definitions before the bill reaches appropriations.

The subcommittee hearing record shows extensive stakeholder negotiation among renewable-energy trade groups, agricultural organizations and rural counties; several organizations signaled conditional support pending the author’s amendments, while farm-conservation groups remain cautious.

AB 1156 will now go to the Appropriations Committee with the committee’s amendments and the author’s commitment to further changes.