January 2025: 
The Planning Board unanimously denied BlueWave Solar’s special permit application for a second proposed solar project on Pine Meadow Road, with members citing a litany of reasons why they believe the project does not fit on the parcel. Among some of the biggest concerns are:

​​​

1. Farmland is scarce and getting scarcer. Massachusetts has already developed the majority of its farmland for non-farming uses. What remains is under increasing pressure for various types of development, including solar. Floodplain farmland along the Connecticut River typically has good soils and easy access to irrigation. This site is a mixture of Hadley and Winooski soils, which are prime, stone free, and well drained. Towns such as Northfield have long recognized the value of preserving that floodplain land for agriculture.

2. The cost of farmland is going up, making it unaffordable for farmers to own or even to rent.   In general, unbuildable floodplain farmland has been the least expensive, which has allowed large parcels to remain available for farming. The fact that the Ashuela Brook farmland seems to have been sold from a family landowner (the Shearer family) to an LLC controlled by the Blue Wave solar company (p 26 of the special permit application dated February 2024) is a troubling sign that farmland, traditionally owned by farm families, will increasingly be acquired by deep-pocketed solar developers. 

3. The subject property has been farmed recently by other valley farmers, who will lose all or most of the use of this land. Most of the larger valley farms swap, borrow, or rent land — very few farms own all of the land they farm.  On a larger scale, dual use solar projects will significantly reduce regional farm output and diminish the bottom lines of the farm businesses they displace.

4. DOER should not approve any solar installations on land that is not owned and operated by a farmer. Proponents of farmland solar have argued that farmers will be financially compensated by lease revenues, offsetting financial losses due to the solar installation's footprint or shading. In this application, the farm operator, Finnicky Farm, is not the landowner and apparently will not receive any lease revenue. This is a terrible precedent, virtually dooming the business viability of the farming enterprise. 

5. DOER has apparently dropped its longstanding requirement that dual use arrays be based on a crop proven to be successful under 50% shade, which is a very limiting factor in cloudy New England. In the old days, a speculative crop plan like Ashuela Brook would have been rejected. 

6. Flexibility in growing different crops, and marketing by different channels, is an essential farming strategy. Many farmers find they have to change crops because of disease or market problems. The problem with these solar arrays is that they foreclose options. Most crops require full sunlight. Many crops like potatoes can only be profitable with high mechanization incompatible with solar. Other options, like pick-your-own crops, or corn mazes, can't be grown under solar.  There is no evidence that fruiting crops like tomatoes can be grown successfully in the shade of solar panels in New England. The brix content (sugar levels) of fruit like tomatoes will likely be reduced by lower solar insolation, due to shading by the panels, resulting in mediocre flavor.  

7. Small scale mixed vegetable farming is a competitive business. There are already many excellent, well-established organic vegetable farms in the Valley. However there have also been several farms that have gone out of business recently. Labor costs are high; capital investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars is required for washing, packing, seedling propagation, storage, machinery, etc. Finnicky Farm should submit a business plan that is peer reviewed to demonstrate their plan has a chance to succeed. Such a plan would be required by MDAR if this property was enrolled in the APR program.

8. There are numerous other reasons to judge that the revised plan will not succeed. Garlic, beets, and cabbage are listed as other planned crops. Based on the most recent USDA New England Vegetable Report (2022), here are the average acreage of these crops grown per farm in Massachusetts: Garlic, .32 acres. Beets, .53 acres. Cabbage, 1.7 acres. Tomatoes grown in open, 1.1 acres. In total, these four crops would occupy 3.65 acres, based on average plantings on farms in our state. These crops are not grown in California-style wholesale plantings in our region. Using only 3.65 acres out of 25 acres would clearly fall under the target for dual use solar agriculture, to generate at least 50% of the yield as the same land without solar.

9. One crop grown in our region on a wholesale acreage is potatoes. Swaz Potato Farms plants thousands of acres of potatoes on Connecticut River floodplain soils. But if you have ever observed their field preparation practices, such as crisscross harrowing, or the size of the machines involved, you would understand this could never be done under a solar field.

10. If it were possible to grow a much wider range of vegetables under solar, Finnicky Farm could easily use all 25 acres to full extent. Similar sized farms in the Valley generate a half million dollars in crop sales. But to farm the full potential of mixed vegetables on a 25-acre parcel would require a workforce of at least ten people. Finnicky Farm has not to my knowledge suggested such a workforce. Crop production will be limited by that factor as well as the 4-crop plan. 

11. The revised plan describes three permanent planting beds between the rows of solar panels, with a total width of 23' 6". The schematic shows 26' separation between the support stanchions of adjacent rows, with 18' of clearance between the drip lines of the panels. In other words, the two edge beds would be partially underneath the panels themselves. Rain water cascading off the panels will cause soil splash and compaction of the beds beneath; this will enhance foliar diseases of many crops.

12. The 3-bed plan leaves only 30 inches (15 inches on each side) for access to the crops, other than driving over the crop beds themselves. Clearly, you couldn't drive over a row of staked tomatoes, one of the proposed crops in the plan. And where will the harvest vehicle go? A more realistic plan would be for a driving lane and two crop beds, or at least a driving lane for every other aisle. Also, managing the uncropped strip directly under the panels will be a big headache. Since the plan is aiming for organic, herbicides can't be used on these strips and around the steel stanchions of the solar panels.

13. Blue Wave includes a photo of an experimental field, part of the UMASS study, where broccoli is being grown by Czajkowski Farm in Hadley under solar. It is worth noting that this is a far better way to develop dual use than the current proposal. The operator has the experience, the crew, and the markets to sell the product. And the installation is small, two acres, and located on marginal soils. Most importantly, I believe that Czajkowski Farm will actually receive the solar rent. However there are downsides. This 2-acre study plot has only been in production for two seasons, and the results have not been reported. Second, broccoli is another minor crop in Massachusetts, grown only on 230 acres on 286 farms in 2022, according to the USDA census. Broccoli-under-solar is never going to be a serious climate solution. Also, broccoli is a low-value crop on a per-acre basis, since it is a big plant, with high fertility inputs, that produces one central head per plant. Broccoli is generally a fall season crop in New England, part of a vegetable rotation that includes spring crops like lettuce or onions, cover cropping, and crop rotation to other crops entirely. Attempts to grow broccoli on that same parcel for 20 years will probably fail. 

14. Farmland can and should be wildlife habitat. This is especially important for farms so close to the Connecticut River, which is a part of the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge. Solar structures will preclude nesting or feeding of many wild birds, such as insect eaters like tree swallows or rodent-eating raptors like Northern Harriers, or the resting of migratory birds. In contrast, the empty potato fields of Northampton are major wintering habitat for many species of birds that nest in the Arctic. Proposed fencing will preclude the passage of mammals larger than rabbits. While this may be helpful in terms of deer exclusion from crop fields, or predator exclusion from livestock, it will be another cumulative impact of many of these solar installations in one geographical area like the Pine Meadows. Within the field, predator exclusion will likely result in a buildup of voles, groundhogs, and other destructive rodents. 

15. The cultural history and beauty of farmland is a major community asset, especially along this shore of the Connecticut River, where the dramatic gorge of the French King opens into the wide plain of the Pine Meadows. These meadows were created, occupied and cultivated by indigenous people from time immemorial. The road that traverses this stretch is a major tourist attraction and beauty spot in Massachusetts. As such, the scenery value of this parcel needs to be accorded a higher degree of protection. Note that this solar installation, being placed in the center of an open field, inherently conflicts with Northfield's zoning bylaw section 8.1.1, Principles of Rural Design, at a location of particular visibility to this historic viewscape.

16. Soil hydrology will be adversely affected by solar panels. Rain water will no longer hit the ground or plants as dispersed droplets, but as runoff pouring off the lower edge of the panels. Ponding of water will occur more often than before. Despite being in the floodplain, in high precipitation events the field will generate runoff rather than absorb it. A rule enacted by MDAR in farmland conservation (APR) limits solar arrays to 5% of the land area. The best place for impervious surface like solar panels is above already impaired, impervious surfaces like rooftops and parking lots.

17. The flooding of Hurricane Helene was a terrifying example of the destructive power of rivers. The proposed solar array's fence would likely become a trap for debris and would wrap around the solar arrays and help to drag them down. Since the current plan does not involve sheep grazing, the fence should be removed. Note that the purpose of Northfield zoning bylaw 10.1, Floodplain Overlay District, section A, broadly applies to this concern.

18. Blue Wave asserts that they have a financial incentive to ensure that agriculture remains viable under their management, since they stand to lose the SMART "adder" if production drops. However, DOER recently proposed a regulatory change to pay the adder despite crop yields as low as 50% of expected yields, as long as a "good faith" effort has been made.  Another proposed regulatory change would reduce the percentage of the field required to be cropped. These changes are concerning. DOER appears to be weakening the agricultural use requirement. The Northfield Planning Board should pause the approvals of these projects until there is long-term evidence of successful farming under these types of structures.

​

​