This op-ed was written by Linn-Benton Community College’s Civil Discourse Program. To learn more about the program, you can visit its website here and its guidebook here.
Solar farms are one of the hottest new trends in Oregon. Sarah Esterson, a senior policy advisor for the Oregon Department of Energy, stated in a January podcast with The Oregonian that the state’s solar farm output has increased 200% when it comes to megawatts and 130% when it comes to footprint in the last two years.
The statistics back the eye test. In December, the state approved a 9,442-acre solar farm in Oregon’s Morrow County. More locally in Linn County, controversy has arisen around the proposed installation of the Muddy Creek Solar Park outside of Brownsville. The solar panel installation, still yet to be approved, would take up roughly 1,600 acres.
These projects are some of many in Oregon’s rapidly-growing solar energy pipeline.
While the installations are a step forward for the state’s clean energy goals, they’ve come under fire for a multitude of reasons, notably regarding how they are often being built on pre-existing farmland. Are these solar parks really the right option for a greener Oregon?
YES
By Norah Steed, Kai Young, and the Civil Discourse Program.
Solar farms are cropping up all over Oregon, promising clean energy. However, concerns have been raised about the impact this will have on the beauty of the state and the continued output of Oregon agricultural land. While these are valid concerns, there are already state measures in place to limit the negative effects of solar farm development. As a result, solar farms on Oregon land would be doing more good than harm.
In June 2021, Oregon legislators passed the Clean Energy Targets bill, a bold requirement for Oregon electricity producers to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from their energy production processes with an end goal of reaching 100% below baseline emissions levels by 2040. In order to reach these fast-approaching targets, there will have to be some structural changes in the way Oregon gets its energy.
There are many sources of renewable energy, each with their own unique challenges, benefits, and detriments. Solar energy has the benefits of scalability and limited impacts on the environment (no dams or geothermal plants are required). The primary detriment highlighted by opponents of solar energy production in Oregon is the amount of land it might take up, which could otherwise be used for agriculture.
But how much land would solar farms actually cover? According to a study completed by the US Department of Energy in September 2021, in order for the entire country to replace its greenhouse gas emitting electricity production with solar power, it would require about 0.5% of the USA’s land area to be converted to solar farms. In Oregon, which has roughly 1.28% of the US population and 2.6% of US land area, there is a lower ratio of wattage required by consumers to land available for solar farms, requiring even less of a solar footprint.
At present, Oregon is not facing a farm shortage, but we are facing the effects of climate change, fueled in large part by decades of greenhouse gas emissions. It is our responsibility to support steps in the direction of reducing our emissions. As Oregon’s population grows, its energy demand will grow too. It is necessary that we are able to provide affordable power to future Oregonians in a sustainable manner. From 2017-2022, Oregon lost 5.18% of its farms (by zoning). Despite this decline, total farm production and sales increased by 14.64% (adjusted for inflation), according to a peer-reviewed study published by Oregon State University. Oregon’s agricultural economy is not in danger of disappearing.
In fact, solar farms can be agricultural producers as well. Incorporating solar panels into farming could benefit crops by preventing soil erosion and aiding water retention due to shade limiting evaporation. Research projects at OSU have supported the use of agrovoltaics — using the same land for both solar power and agriculture — and reported benefits regarding everything from grazing sheep to farming tomatoes, beans, and grass.
A 2024 OPB article noted how farmers can benefit from the relative stability of solar farms in terms of an investment in contrast to the volatility of crops, further helping local farmers.
The promotion and development of solar farms in Oregon would also be a positive force for our economy. In 2021, the US Department of Environmental Quality predicted a national transition to solar power would generate another 500,000–1,500,000 jobs nationwide.
Oregon’s solar boom will result in some slight changes to the landscape around us, but it’s nowhere near as threatening to the state’s natural beauty or farmland as its critics fear. Solar energy is the correct answer to Oregon’s clean energy goals.
NO
By Joshua Hewitt, Phoebe Denbo, and the Civil Discourse Program.
The recent approval of Oregon’s largest solar installation on 10,000 acres of farmland raises serious concerns about the future of agricultural land use. While we celebrate the promise of powering 800,000 homes with solar energy, there is a conveniently ignored cost: the loss of productive farmland that has fed our communities for generations. These aren’t just abstract acres on a map — they’re the fields where countless farm families have worked dawn to dusk, where children learned to drive tractors alongside their parents, and where the very soil holds generations of careful land stewardship and family history.
Converting farmland to solar installations doesn’t just impact agricultural production — it accelerates the push of development further into our rural areas. Oregon’s farmland and natural beauty are arguably the state’s two biggest draws, with the Willamette Valley even earning the title “grass seed capital of the world.” We don’t want to see a day where the fertile farms we see on our daily commutes are converted into acres of solar arrays. Solar expansion could also threaten restoration and access to the state’s wetlands.
We should not be fragmenting our agricultural belts with industrial installations, which will contribute to exactly the kind of urban sprawl that environmental planning tries to prevent. Our productive farmland serves as a natural buffer against urban expansion; once we start punching holes in it with solar parks, we weaken this crucial boundary.
There are better alternatives. Solar installations can and should be prioritized on brownfield sites, former industrial areas, and urban spaces. Parking lots can be covered with solar canopies, like California and Massachusetts have done. Desert areas with high solar potential can be utilized without sacrificing crop production. But replacing farmland with solar panels should be our last resort, not our default strategy.
The current solar gold rush, fueled by generous subsidies, threatens to irreversibly alter our rural landscape. Solar panels have an average lifespan of just 25-30 years, after which they become hazardous electronic waste. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, solar panel waste could reach 78 million metric tons globally by 2050, and the toxic materials within these panels – lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals – pose significant environmental risks. These massive solar installations are creating tomorrow’s environmental crisis while supposedly solving today’s.
As we stand at this crossroads, we must ask ourselves: What legacy do we want to leave for future generations? Will our grandchildren inherit a patchwork of industrial solar farms where fertile fields once stood, or will they thank us for finding a way to balance progress with preservation?
Our rush to achieve climate goals shouldn’t come at the expense of food security and rural communities. We need a more balanced approach that recognizes the essential role of both agriculture and renewable energy in our future. This means implementing strict limits on farmland conversion, requiring developers to prioritize non-agricultural sites, and eliminating loopholes in laws that protect prime farmland.
The decisions we make today about land use will shape our communities for generations. While the need for renewable energy is clear, sacrificing our best farmland is a short-sighted solution that creates new problems while solving others. We can and must find a better way forward that preserves both our agricultural heritage and our clean energy future.
This article appeared in the February 2025 edition of The Commuter.
