Dave Hunnicutt
What Do Renewable Energy, High Tech “Chips” & Pumpkin Patches Have in Common? The Oregon Legislature Doesn’t Like Any of Them
This month, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) published an article entitled “The Other Paycheck: How Off-Farm Income Keeps Farmers Farming.” AFBF is the national trade association for the agriculture industry.
The article is a detailed report on the relationship between farm income and non-farm income for American farm families. Here’s the money quote:
“In 2023, just 23% of farm household income for farm families came from farming itself – meaning a remarkable 77% came from other sources. This Market Intel explores the essential – but often overlooked – role of off-farm income in supporting farm families, buffering against market volatility and sustaining rural livelihoods.”
For anyone representing Oregon farmers, the report isn’t a surprise, and the numbers aren’t new. This has been the case for farming for years. Many farmers or their spouses have second or third jobs. Heck, many of the farmers we know also are also realtors, book keepers, teachers, and more.
That’s why it’s bizarre to witness the hostility of many Oregon Legislators and “farmland advocates” to any proposal that would authorize farmers to make alternative income on their own property. The typical argument for this position is that allowing “non-farm uses” on farmland interferes with the ability to use the land for farming.
But as articles like AFBF’s continue to point out, farmers need alternative sources of income. If non-farm use on the farm is what generates the majority of income for farm families in rural America, why would we advocate against it? Wouldn’t that be advocating for the economic downfall of our farm families?
If we make it hard for farmers to engage in non-farm uses, we make it harder on farmers themselves. As we like to remind legislators, you don’t have “farmland” without a farmer.
But Oregon legislators have been traditionally hostile and suspicious about non-farm uses. This session is no exception. Here’s a few examples:
Renewable Energy
Over the last decade, the push for alternative energy has grown, with solar and wind projects expanding nationwide to help power the grid. Given Oregon’s unique climate and topography, the state is a great location for these projects, offering strong potential for a variety of renewable energy projects.
In recent legislative sessions, lawmakers have repeatedly tried to ease restrictions on siting wind and solar projects in the areas where it is most compatible and land is available. In Oregon, that means farmland.
This shouldn’t be a surprise as nearly all privately owned rural land is zoned as farmland or forestland, meaning solar and wind farms inevitably get placed on land with those designations, even if they’re not actually productive farms or forests.
Opposition to these efforts comes from your usual anti-development NIMBY groups, but also local government officials who worry about drastic changes to rural communities. Support for expanding renewable energy production is mixed between though who support the goal to decarbonize and diversify our energy sources and those who see the opportunity in getting in early on a new form of energy production.
Stuck in the middle is the farming and ranching community, who appears split between the financial opportunity renewable energy brings, and the desire to keep farmland in production.
Some farmers and ranchers see benefit from leasing land for these projects, as it provides a steady income and helps keep the rest of their farm in operation. In some cases, farming can even continue on the solar farm itself. This is called “co-location” or “agrivoltaics”. Essentially, it’s extra income at no cost to the farmer, with no real impact on neighbors other than aesthetics, while also adding power to the grid. Here’s an example: How Oregon’s largest solar farm is benefiting from sheep herding.
This isn’t about supporting one type of energy over another. Renewable energy may not be the most cost-effective option, and some argue that other methods deserve more focus. That debate aside, opposition to solar and wind farms in Salem isn’t based on economics— it’s rooted in concerns about “preserving farmland.” This argument doesn’t hold up because farmers benefit from these projects, using non-farm income to keep their land productive. If they go out of business, that farmland turns into unused open space.
We’re not looking at this from the energy industry’s perspective— we’re focused on what benefits farmers. If a farmer can make money in a way that harms no one, and they want to incorporate solar onto their land, the government shouldn’t stand in the way.
Farm Stands and Agritourism
OK, this one should be a no-brainer, right? If we want to keep farmland in production, wouldn’t we allow farmers as much flexibility as possible to promote their businesses and sell their products?
Wrong. Welcome to Oregon land use.
One of the easiest ways for a farmer to make money from traditional farm activities is to directly market their farm products to the end consumer. This can be done in a variety of ways. On many farms, direct to consumer onsite farm sales are done through a “farm stand”, which is an allowed use on most Oregon farms.
If you want to visualize what I’m talking about (or patron one yourself) check out this video: It’s corn maze, pumpkin patch season on Sauvie Island.
Farm stands are a great way for farmers to maximize their farm income, connect with consumers, and promote their business. This is especially helpful for those small or new farmers, who do not have established wholesale or grocer contracts.
Despite being integral to the economic success of many farms, in Oregon, farm stands are considered a “non-farm” use, subject to regulation, permitting, and even income restrictions.
You’re probably thinking, What the heck? Strange indeed, but apparently allowing farmers to build farmstands, attract customers, and succeeding financially is a threat to “preserving farmland”.
Of course, the “preserving farmland” argument conveniently ignores the fact that the public absolutely loves farm stands and their agritourism events. Go out to a pumpkin patch in the Willamette Valley on any weekend in October and you’ll see what we’re talking about. Visit a flower festival in the spring. Go pick out your Christmas tree in December. Most of those ARE permitted as farm stands!
Earlier this year, the legislature introduced a bill to clarify farm stand rules and give farmers more flexibility. You’d think they were dismantling land use planning altogether.
Opposition was predictable and loud. At one point, lawmakers debated whether a farmer could sell a cheeseburger made with beef and cheese from the farm. The “farmland preservation” advocates were outraged— “If we let farmers do that, the next thing you know they’ll be a McDonalds on farmland!”
To their credit, legislators and the Governor’s Office suggested continuing the discussion at LCDC to explore compromise. We appreciate that.
But why should farmers need legislative approval just to sell products made from their own crops? Does a farm lose its integrity if it sells apple pie instead of apples? Will farmland disappear because a farmstand has a petting zoo, a pumpkin chucker, or a corn maze? As long as health, safety, and traffic rules are followed, the government should stay out of it, and lawmakers should make that clear.
Someday, the legislature will look back and see the damage excessive regulations have done to farmers and Oregon’s economy. Hopefully, by then, it won’t be too late.
High Tech “Chips”
Unless you’ve been in a coma for the last few years, you’ve probably noticed that the United States and China are locked in an increasingly open and hostile battle over the future of global politics. Many political commentators have referred to the conflict as the next Cold War.
As part of that struggle, there’s been increasing concern in both countries about development of artificial intelligence programs, super computers, and cutting-edge weapons systems to ensure each country’s security in the event of a conflict with the other. Development in each area relies extensively on the development of smaller and more powerful microchips, which are used in everything from cell phones to cars to weapons systems and AI programs.
Unfortunately, America has a problem with microchips. The majority of the world’s most advanced microchips are produced in Taiwan. Although the government in Taiwan is friendly with the United States, the Chinese government considers Taiwan to be a rogue province of China, and has vowed to retake Taiwan (an island approximately 100 miles offshore of mainland China) by 2027, including by force, if necessary.
If you want to know a flashpoint for the next world war, look no further than Taiwan.
What does this have to do with Oregon? The concern with concentrating microchip production on an island just offshore of mainland China has long worried the United States, and rightly so. Given the importance of microchips to maintain a technological advantage, in 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act.
The CHIPS Act was designed to bring microchip production back to the U.S. and reduce dependence on Taiwan. To encourage companies to build chip plants here, Congress allocated billions in subsidies.
Chip plants need highly skilled workers and create a lot of well-paying jobs. Most communities would love to have one because of the economic benefits.
Oregon officials were eager to attract a plant, but then reality set in—most states can approve projects quickly, while Oregon’s strict land use laws cause long delays. Other states could promise fast approvals, while Oregon’s process could take years. So, despite the excitement, Oregon had little chance.
In 2023, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 4, an attempt to cut through red tape. But in trying to appease farmland preservation advocates, they watered it down so much that it accomplished nothing.
A bolder approach would have been to designate certain areas for chip plants, guaranteeing quick approval. A farmer in one of those zones could sell land for a huge profit, keep farming elsewhere, and Oregon would gain jobs and economic growth while losing only a tiny fraction of farmland.
Today there are many farmers and rural property owners who would love to sell a portion of their land to create microchips. Thanks to the “farmland advocates”, they don’t get to make that choice for themselves.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the opinions or positions of any party represented by the OPOA Legal Center on any particular matter.