South Bend Tribune | John Wikman, January 26
I am a third-generation native of Starke County, Indiana, and our family has actively farmed our land for nearly a century. While I am not a full-time farmer as my father and grandfather were, my wife and I manage the day-to-day operations of our 440-acre farm. The farm is my family’s heritage, and we are deeply connected to the land and Starke County.
When Doral Renewables approached me about potentially transitioning our farm to solar power, I had some long conversations with Doral and my family. My first concern was the same as many solar opponents — ensuring the character and culture of my family’s agricultural heritage are maintained. I thought back to my dad in the 1970s and 1980s; he helped pioneer anti-erosion land management practices, winning the Indiana Farmer of the Year award in 1982 and national recognitions.
I realized that if I could have sat down with my dad and told him we were thinking about “going solar,” he would have been overjoyed. He loved the land more than anything, and the project with Doral presents so many opportunities to help the land and the whole county.
Property rights and freedoms
The Wikmans came to Starke County in 1933 so my grandfather could have the freedom to build a new life for his family. For 70-plus years, our land has been in corn and soybeans. If I, as the free-and-clear owner of my farm, wanted to plant potatoes next year to increase profits for my farm, would an activist group stand in my way and restrict my freedom? How is this any different from me ensuring a future for my family by installing solar?
While any project must be sensibly governed with good oversight, restrictive ordinance proposals seem to be designed purely to hinder the economic and cultural growth of Starke County or put undue restrictions on landowners’ freedoms. For example, there was a proposed change to erect earthen berms around agrivoltaic sites to eliminate visuals. Requiring massive earthworks ignores real-world land management and would require constructs that in many cases would destroy habitats or cause undue erosion, all things this project seeks to actively avoid by using science-backed soil erosion control and habitat management practices. Proposed restrictions, such as the aforementioned example, impose controls that are drastically different from other forms of agriculture that have been an accepted practice for over a century.
Environmental impact
After over a century of farming, our arable land in Starke County is exhausted. We saturate the land in chemicals every year to ensure production. The lease agreement with Doral has stipulations for how the land will be managed, including planting pollinator-friendly plants that will work for the next several decades to restore the land, even as clean energy is created for the future and present benefit of our county. Starke County is in the unique position to be at the forefront of a sea-change in the U.S. energy sector while still maintaining its rural and agricultural heritage through agrivoltaics.
County character
Reading between the lines, some opponents believe a solar farm is antithetical to preservation of the county’s character now and for future generations. I alternatively propose that solar is a solution, not a problem. Doral Renewables’ project will restore our county’s character by taking our farm back to the cleaner days when farms grew food and animals for the locals, not for 90% non-local usage. This is precisely what we should all be striving for as caretakers of the land.
This post is the work of the author(s) indicated.
Read the original article here.