OPINION:
In rural communities across the country, a consequential debate is underway over who gets to decide how farmland is used.
Increasingly, local restrictions on solar development, including county-level bans and permitting roadblocks, are limiting farmers’ ability to make decisions about their own land, even when those decisions could improve their financial stability and support local economic growth.
At its core, the question is simple: If American farmers, who feed and fuel our nation, can’t decide how to use their own land, then what does ownership really mean?
A recent Associated Press report explains the high stakes. In Ohio, one farmer lost out on a solar lease that would have generated roughly $540,000 in annual income after local officials blocked the project.
That outcome is more than just a missed opportunity to support his family’s livelihood. It reflects a broader trend in which local policy is overriding private land use decisions that have long been left to property owners.
Property rights have always been central to rural economic life. Farmers routinely adapt their land use in response to changing markets, rotating crops or the pursuit of new revenue streams to meet evolving conditions.
In an industry shaped by volatility, flexibility is not a luxury so much as it is essential to survival.
For many farmers, leasing a portion of their land for solar provides stable, long-term income that can help preserve family operations. In some cases, it can mean the difference between keeping land in the family and being forced to sell.
At the same time, states are competing to attract new manufacturing, logistics hubs and, more recently, data centers, all of which require enormous and reliable supplies of electricity.
Demand for power is rising rapidly, driven in part by artificial intelligence and advanced industry. Meeting that demand will require building more generation capacity and doing so quickly.
Solar energy is well-suited to help meet this moment. Utility-scale projects can be developed and connected to the grid on relatively short timelines compared with other generation sources.
In many cases, solar can be deployed in approximately 16 months, while gas turbines often take more than three years to bring online. Solar projects are built through voluntary agreements with landowners and can provide reliable power, especially when paired with battery storage to meet peak demand.
The political and practical realities of solar’s role in meeting future electricity and affordability demands are increasingly recognized by Republicans. Conservatives such as Katie Miller and Newt Gingrich have emphasized that meeting future electricity demand will require a mix of energy sources rather than limiting development to a single category.
In March, Energy Secretary Chris Wright remarked at an energy conference in Texas that “advancing energy storage and new solar technologies” would play a critical part in President Trump’s “all-of-the-above energy strategy.”
Across states such as Texas, Florida, Indiana and Ohio, solar is already playing a role in expanding supply and helping moderate costs. In fact, 79% of new American solar capacity installed during the first year of Mr. Trump’s second term was built in states he won in 2024.
This progress could be jeopardized if local officials choose blanket restrictions and broad prohibitions over responsible economic development. By replacing case-by-case evaluation with one-size-fits-all rules, farmers are no longer making decisions about their own property. Local politicians are now in charge.
That’s a troubling shift. Across the country, whether it is housing or energy projects, it is becoming harder to build anything. Each new layer of restriction may be well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is the same: less economic opportunity, less independence for landowners and a growing inability to meet U.S. infrastructure needs.
As the United States prepares to celebrate 250 years of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson’s famous words drew inspiration from John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” In the text, he described “lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”
Owning land should still mean something in America, as the Founders intended. Government should not stand in the way of voluntary agreements between landowners and their own pursuit of happiness — especially when those choices can help deliver a more prosperous and secure future for all Americans.
• John Szoka is the CEO of the Conservative Energy Network and a former member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, where he served as chairman of the Energy and Public Utilities Committee.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.