Happy Black History Month. While we take time each February to highlight the many critical contributions of people of color, the innovations of Black and Indigenous people are used in sustainable agriculture through all seasons. It is important to understand and honor these contributions. 

It was Black agrarians that also brought about CSAs (Community Supported Ag). Another Tuskegee University Alum, Dr. Booker T Whatley returned from the Korean War and set up a 55 acre farm and offered a “clientele membership club” akin to the modern subscription style CSA. He saw these clubs not as just ways to feed people but also let them see farms up close - the beginnings of the Agrotourism movement. Dr. Whatley suggested that these farms offering clubs should be no more than 40 miles away from population centers to keep connections with club members. This of course reminds us of the Ag Reserve where residents can really know their farmer and participate in modern CSA programs (find your farmer here).  
​
Much more about Drs. Carver and Whatley here. 

The roots of modern sustainable ag go back even further - the First Peoples of this country brought innovations to agriculture we still use today. The basis of Permaculture, another sustainable ag method, involve growing symbiotic crops in groups called "guilds". This echoes the "Three Sisters" plantings  of Indigenous Americans - corn, beans and squash are grown together - the beans fix nitrogen for the corn who's stalks are the support for the climbing bean and squash vines, the broad leaves of which deter any weeds. 

While we have Indigenous People and People of Color to thank for many of the practices that fall under "sustainable agriculture" today, the history we don't often learn involves the systemic removal of land from these same groups - sometimes by discrimination in allocation of resources, sometimes by force. 1.3% of farmers in 2017's Ag Census were Black, in 1920 14% of farmers were black. The intervening years included violence, and discrimination so rampant at the USDA it lead to the largest civil settlement in history - $2 Billion in the "Pigford" Case.  The story of what happened is captured in the excellent and hopeful book "Farming While Black," by NY state farmer Leah Penniman (and more briefly in this "How to Save a Planet" podcast episode about Regenerative Agriculture for the uninitiated). A great deep dive in this NY Times piece here. 

On the national scene, MCA supports the Justice for Black Farmers Act that would grant farmers of color land through the Land Grant program and provide training to get them growing. This bill was just re-introduced by Senators Booker, Warren and Gillibrand among others. 
Here closer to home - we are matching aspiring farmers of all types with land to get started through our Land Link program. There is particular interest from aspiring farmers of color and we are proud that two of the farms listed in the MoCo BIPOC-Owned Food Guide found their land through Land Link. Since 2011 we have connected over 500 acres of land with new and expanding farmers in Montgomery County. Farmers are looking for anywhere from 1/2-50 acres. To learn more about offering or leasing land visit our Land Link program.  

While MCA has working hard to balance solar and farming here in Montgomery County, our Climate Legislative Liaison, board member Joyce Bailey, has been busy supporting climate bills on our behalf in Annapolis. There are several environmental bills being considered this year, with the legislature still in session so we will be submitting additional written testimony in the weeks ahead. 
A brief look at what she has been up to with links to our testimony:

Pictured above - A 90 Acre Regenerative Ag pilot project at historic at Linden Farm in the Ag Reserve - a partnership between Sugarloaf Citizens Association and Greg Glenn of Rocklands Farm linked through our Land Link program. Currently, this field is planted in a cover crop of raddishes, clover and annual rye. Next will come the livestock to add manure to the field. Greg is participating the Million Acre Challenge in Maryland to roll out regenerative ag practices across the state. Learn More. 

Here at MCA we have, for a few years now, been making a big deal about Regenerative Agriculture. These newly "discovered" farming practices are actually very old (and mostly innovations of Black and Indigenous people)  but provide solutions to our climate crisis  (and specifically our carbon crisis) that are very timely. 

It is difficult to explain what this new/old field of agriculture is, unlike certification for organic production that has specific practices that are allowed or not allowed, there is no certifying body and no specific list of practices that make a farm "Regenerative". Among the practices are:
- Planting cover crops of legumes and deep rooted plants to nourish and break up heavy soils and prevent erosion.
-Using livestock to forage the cover crops, leaving their nutrient rich manure behind.
-Avoiding tilling the soil as much as possible to keep the soil structure and community of microbes intact.

This list does not give a full sense of the very real potential for Regenerative Ag to be both a powerful climate solution and kickstart an agrarian and rural revolution.

Enter an excellent new podcast - "How to Save a Planet" and their recent episode where they tackle what Regenerative Farming is and how it can be a powerful carbon sequestration and public health tool. In one hour they explain the benefits of Regenerative Ag, among them concentrating carbon in the soil, improving soil health, water quality and increasing crop yields. They also show two examples of how these practices are revitalizing farms - both a small table crop operation and a large commodity farm in the midwest. 

This podcast also does a great job of encapsulating the historical (and modern) struggles of farmers of color. Far more on this topic here. 

The podcast suggested this video from a North Dakota farmer Gabe Brown. His TedX talk is a great overview of the how and why of Regenerative Ag based on his own ranch. 

After much hard work on the part of the climate action workgroup, the county's draft climate action plan is out for public review and comment. In the absence of in-person opportunities to gather and review the plan, the County has set up a number of ways for residents to give feedback (all can be found here):

• An interactive virtual room where residents can view plan documents and leave comments.
• A 5 minute survey  
• A number of virtual climate events:

- A youth summit on February 11th
-A Business Summit on  February 19th
-A session hosted by Sustainable Barnesville on February 24
​
Comments are due by February 28th. 

This plan has a number of ways the Ag Reserve can pitch in to meet the County's carbon reduction goals, particularly in the Carbon sequestration section starting on page 80 of the plan.  Learn more on what we are doing to reforest stream buffers through our Re-Leaf the Reserve program and  check out a 90 acre regenerative ag pilot project happening in Dickerson through our Land Link program.

​ZTA 20-01 raises on-farm solar generation from 120% of farm energy needs to 200% - with the excess going back to the grid. This is very helpful to both farms and addressing climate change.
Photos are of Reserve fiber and CSA farm arrays. Resources for Funding
A 62 member coalition of groups endorsed this increase and other common sense provisions of the bill that allow solar in the Reserve on soil classes 3 and above. More here.

Hats off to all the action takers, our coalition partners, the producers, the County Executive’s office,  and to the council members who found a pathway forward that protects the land the sustains us while making room for solar. 

The vote: ​
A straw vote (firm)  was 6-3 for conditional use (a process that will afford more care in siting). The official vote on this amendment will take place at next week's council session.

An official vote was 5-4 to protect Class 2 soils (in addition to the class 1 soils protected in the ZTA as written)
Thanks to Councilmembers Rice, Friedson, Katz, Navarro, Albornoz, and Jawando for their support and leadership. Particular kudos to Craig Rice and Andrew Friedson for their work on the amendments. 

​Our Coalition was strong and deep on this issue, we'd like to thank the more than 60 local and state civic groups that signed on to support the Ag Reserve Stakeholders compromise amendments. Huge thanks also go to our partners at Clean Water Action Maryland, and Sugarloaf Citizens' Association, the Montgomery County Women's Democratic Club, Takoma Alliance for Local Living Economy, the county Office of Agriculture. We were proud to work shoulder to shoulder with farmers Doug Lechlider and Randy Stabler who took lots of time away from the field to work tirelessly on this issue. 

We'd also like to thank the many hundreds of residents that shared their concerns about this proposal with the Council. Your voice mattered and in these times we know you had many other demands on your attention. Thank You!

As Councilmembers said yesterday, this issue was a tough one but this compromise is the prudent path forward.  As we grapple with threats such as climate change, we can't let the emergency before us cloud the manner in which we engage with the issue and with each other. Good faith compromises like this one are not possible without a shared set of facts. Claims of misinformation must be respectfully addressed. The challenges we face as a county, nation and world are surmountable when robust disagreement remains civil.

There’s a lot of critical work to be done on other fronts. The robust discussion around the vote at the council identified the work ahead to ensure that the Reserve is growing the next generation of table crop producers - with an eye to making land accessible to all who want to grow our region's food, particularly farmers of color. (Check out our Land Link program)  Let’s get to it!

Press:
The Sentinel (before the vote)
The Sentinel (after the vote)
The Potomac Almanac (after the vote)

Renewable energy is going to need to be part of the solution to climate change, but on the way to our renewable future, we need to be sure that holistic solutions balance natural systems, equitable access and transparency. 

ZTA 20-01 proposed up to 3 square miles of solar arrays in Montgomery County's 40 year commitment to farming and open space, the Agricultural Reserve, with scant protections for productive farmland, forests and water quality. Compromise amendments balanced soil/forest/water protections in siting in line with the County's master plan and national best practices. 

Among the benefits of the ZTA touted by its backers is solar energy for low income people in the county that are unable to access renewable energy. The Community Solar program allows for this but the ZTA did not stipulate that the power will go only to the Community Solar program, rather that it would be net metered. Net metered energy, once produced becomes part of the state's deregulated energy market and the resulting lack of transparency has created a wild west of 3rd party power suppliers now under investigation for predatory practices, particularly in low income neighborhoods. 
Representatives of some of these same companies were the ones pushing for this ZTA in the Ag Reserve. 

The short story is told by the Baltimore Sun in December 2019 - "Maryland must crack down on energy suppliers that entice people into bad, pricey contracts." - and the Office of the People's Counsel is filing complaints with the Public Service Commission as a result.
Two State Representatives penned an Op-Ed in the Sun "Switching utility companies means many low-income Marylanders paying more" - laying out the ways in which these companies lure low income people into adjustable rate contracts that are then paid by state and local energy assistance funds. This deregulation and the shenanigans it allows is costing all of us more but particularly harming the most vulnerable. The Energy Assistance Protection Act proposed in the piece is long overdue. 

Or WYPR- last February covering the price gap for green energy suppliers - Baltimore residents have been paying an average of 50 percent more than a regular utility customer - and at variable rates that always seem to be going up. From 2014-2017, this unregulated market (green and conventional 3rd parties) cost Maryland consumers $600 Million above what would have been paid to the standard utility (Pepco, ConEdison, BGE, etc).
​

A report from the Abell Foundation has dug into the details.  We were fortunate to attend a webinar with one of the researchers behind the Abell report, Laurel Peltier. Her whole presentation on 3rd party power distributors is here (pdf) .  Below, a few of the slides explained:

Laurel has broken out the top green energy companies and the percentage they charge over the typical statewide average price per kilowatt. Paying slightly more for renewables that do not have the subsidies of dirtier fuels makes sense, but 60% more? 70% more?  The 16 Million dollars at the bottom represents the total extra paid by those 43,877 residents to these 4 companies over the amount they would have paid the standard supplier in 2018 alone.

These suppliers are buying the RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) from energy generators (with the deregulation involved these can come from the obvious wind, solar or the head scratcher- trash incineration). These cost around 1 cent/killowatt hour. ​However the adjustable rate of these evergreen contracts can go up considerably and without notice, not as a result of more power used, but the entire price structure is variable after the introductory rate period.  

More links:
Clean Choice Energy Under investigation in Illinois
Dubious Marketing Claims of Retail Power Suppliers
​Massachusetts needs to crack down on 3rd party energy suppliers 
​WaPo: Switching Energy Suppliers? Do your homework first
​Maryland Clean Energy Program Has Big Dirty Component  

There's no question we need to ramp up renewable energy as part of a comprehensive climate change response - but how we do so matters.

Over the past year in ensuring ZTA 20-01 had the proper protections to balance solar generation with local farms, forests and water quality, the broad coalition of farmers, climate activists and  environmentalists of which we are a part has been confused by the Sierra Club's lack of support for these same environmental protections as has been their mission for generations. 

Yesterday afternoon, MCA received this communication (and our Response)  from the Sierra Club taking us to task for our post listing the best practices for siting solar from Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Sierra Club.

All of the links and quotes on that post supporting farmland protection in solar siting were verbatim from the Maryland and National Sierra Club websites and yet  they were calling them "misinformation"- many of the quotes actually seemed to support careful siting of solar on farmland - even calling for the protection of class 1-3 productive soils and making the arrays a conditional use- something this ZTA has failed to do despite outcry from hundreds of residents up and down county and over 60 civic groups.  In the days since posting these best practices, one of the pages on the National Sierra Club about energy siting has been taken down. 
​
The email from Sierra Club instead shared a different solar siting document, called the updated energy siting guidelines. This "updated" document (with solar parts highlighted) did not even mention ground mounted solar - but instead seems to make the case for rooftop solar as the way forward. For example (p. 13): 

"Many opportunities exist in and adjacent to our communities for the local, smaller-scale application of renewable technologies (such as rooftop solar). Distributed clean energy involves the entire community in energy solutions, and reduces transmission impacts and disruptive transmission bottlenecks. The Sierra Club supports properly sited and designed local and district energy projects, and calls for measures to ensure that local, smaller-scale projects have access to the transmission and distribution system. Because distributed generation generally takes place in an urban or otherwise developed environment, serious siting problems or unacceptable environmental impacts are uncommon."

We remain confused about Sierra Club's current position that solar installation should not be balanced with the natural resources they have spent generations protecting - a position that is in conflict with their own stated policies listed on their website. 

It is up to the County Council now - many of whom have been thoughtfully considering the hundreds of emails from residents urging the responsible siting of solar in the Ag Reserve as a conditional use.  (related: The MoCo hearing examiner responds to a misunderstanding of the Conditional Use process)
​
This ZTA was up for a vote at the council today, but ZTA sponsor CM Riemer has pulled the vote and will just have discussion with a hope to vote next week (you can watch on you tube here - tune in around 2:00 or 2:30pm)  

This delay means there is still time to write in - individuals can do so here  and organizations here.  Thank you for your time on this issue when there is so much else going on. Your support of the Ag Reserve and local farms matters, ​

 As long as there has been energy generation there has been the issue of where to site it. 

Solar energy generation (in its current form) relies on flat sunny surfaces. Agriculture, since the practice began, has also relied on flat, sunny soil.  Wise planners saw the potential conflict between these land uses long ago and began to find ways to balance the need for renewable energy and agriculture.  

ZTA 20-01- that would allow 3 square miles of industrial solar in Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve on productive soils and provide scant protections for forests or water quality - is coming up for a vote at the County Council on 1/26.

​This provision has not taken advantage of the best practices of experts or other area jurisdictions that are siting the very same community solar we are after on degraded lands and through conditional use, taking care of productive soils.  

The National Sierra Club Position on Energy Facilities Siting and Ag/Food
​Update - Sierra Club has said the previously quoted  siting policy on their website is not accurate as it is from 1978  (but accessed on their website this week but as of 1/29/2021 it has been taken down). According to their email, this is the updated solar policy. (solar parts highlighted by MCA). This policy does not mention ground mounted solar however on p 13 seems to set a preference for rooftop solar: ​

"Many opportunities exist in and adjacent to our communities for the local, smaller-scale application of renewable technologies (such as rooftop solar). Distributed clean energy involves the entire community in energy solutions, and reduces transmission impacts and disruptive transmission bottlenecks. The Sierra Club supports properly sited and designed local and district energy projects, and calls for measures to ensure that local, smaller-scale projects have access to the transmission and distribution system. Because distributed generation generally takes place in an urban or otherwise developed environment, serious siting problems or unacceptable environmental impacts are uncommon."

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

"Where Solar Shouldn't Go is as Critical as Where it Does Go" - Bay Journal OpEd by CBF Land Use Director Lee Epstein 12/20

CBF White Paper "Principles and Practices for Realizing the Necessity and Promise of Solar Power"

•  "Either conduct statewide or local solar facility siting studies. "
• "“Community solar” facilities may also be acceptable, if they avoid high quality environmental resources and are not placed on prime farmland or replace forest and woodlands. "
• "Avoid location of solar facilities on prime agricultural soils. Any solar operations on lesser quality agricultural fields must not negatively affect the land and soil that could prevent active farming in the future"
• "At the local level (where appropriate under state law), list solar facilities as, and use the review and approval process for, conditional or special exception uses. "

Baltimore County - Conditional Use  
​Projects -
Owings Mills 
Kingsville 
Dogwood (Now Closed w/700 subscribers)
​
​Howard County  -  Conditional Use 
Projects: 
West Friendship
​Hanover

Thanks to the Montgomery County Food Council for their letter in support of solar as a conditional use. : "It is critical to ensure that farmers continue to have equitable access to land lease opportunities that support food production and expand the ability for new and historically disadvantaged farmers to establish farms in the Agricultural Reserve"

Good News: The Ag Reserve stakeholders group has identified a pathway forward for solar siting in the Ag Reserve. The Conditional use process that already exists for cell and radio towers, pipelines and public utilities is the only legal path for siting solar in the Reserve under the master plan.  Read the full recommendations here. 

A number of Councilmembers are giving careful thought to the way we balance resource protection and climate goals through the conditional use process. But they need to hear from you. Even if you have already written in, the Council needs to hear from you this week in advance of the vote on the 26th. 

If you are an individual, the fastest way to get your message to the Council is our two minute email portal here. 

If you represent an organization, please sign on to the letter here, full text pasted below. 

If you would rather pick up the phone and leave a message for the council members, click here. 

​Sign-On Letter:
MAINTAIN AGRICULTURE AS THE PRIMARY USE OF LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL RESERVE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD

SUPPORT THE CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSAL FROM AGRICULTURAL STAKEHOLDERS TO ALLOW SOLAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS

OUR CLIMATE DECISIONS CAN AND MUST REINFORCE – NOT DESTROY – OUR FOOD AND WATER SECURITY

Council President Tom Hucker
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

January 2021

Dear Council President Hucker and Councilmembers,

Montgomery County is home to the nation’s most celebrated farmland. Our County’s Agricultural Reserve – a forty-year effort and model of farming on the edge of a metropolis – is 93,000 acres of land preserved for farming. Led by a coalition of farmers and advocates for local agriculture, food justice, climate justice, and clean water, the undersigned request your support to maintain agriculture as the sole primary land use in the Agricultural Reserve. This means rejecting ZTA 20-01 as written, and voting “Yes” on the Agricultural Stakeholders’ Conditional Use proposal for reviewing and permitting solar installations in the Agricultural Reserve.

A well-protected Agricultural Reserve is key to food security, human health, and environmental sustainability for all residents in Montgomery County and the Chesapeake region, now and in the years to come. Its 562 farms supply food and fiber, along with clean drinking water and clean air, to the Greater Washington D.C. region. The ability to grow food locally has been critical during the pandemic, while 100,000 people in Montgomery County are food-insecure. The Farm to Food Bank Program is helping farmers ramp-up the supply of healthy table crops to families in need. And local food production will become even more critical as the climate crisis worsens. At present, 5% or less of the table crops eaten in our region are grown in our region; as fuel prices increase and food supplies are disrupted, Montgomery County’s need for the Ag Reserve, for the food security of its residents, will increase. All Montgomery County residents have been part of and paid for the Agricultural Reserve, and all Montgomery County residents benefit from preserving it for agriculture.

ZTA 20-01, if passed as written, will break the legal tools that have protected the Agricultural Reserve so far. The bill’s current language would allow a non-agricultural industry to be considered a “permitted use”, the same category as farming. This will destroy the legal protections that have allowed the County to preserve this land for agriculture. As the solar industry and its advocates have threatened, the Maryland Public Services Commission has the legal authority to site large-scale solar facilities of any size within the Ag Reserve. The fact that Montgomery County has maintained farming as the sole primary land use in the Ag Reserve for forty years supports the case for adhering to the Master Plan and maintaining this crucial land use commitment to agriculture. If Montgomery County now establishes large-scale solar as a co-equal primary use for land in the Ag Reserve through this ZTA, its strongest argument against State siting of large industrial facilities will be lost, and the County will lose its control of land use in the Ag Reserve. Making solar power a conditional use instead, as proposed by the Stakeholders, will allow appropriate solar projects to move forward in the Ag Reserve while retaining the County’s local control over land use. This is the legal framework Howard County and Baltimore County have used, and Montgomery County must follow suit.

Smart solar siting does not require Montgomery County to rush to displace renting farmers. A sound climate response should not pit energy producers against farmers; we can choose to expand the solar industry in places where it won’t have such negative effects - including brownfields, parking lots, industrial roofs, and more - and there are many more effective methods we can use in the Agricultural Reserve that can assist the County in meeting their climate action goals - including using regenerative agriculture practices on our lands to pull carbon back into the soil. Neither Montgomery County nor the state of Maryland have completed a comprehensive study to determine where solar can and should be optimally placed in the county; communities that have done so found more than enough appropriate sites to build solar without taking prime farmland.

If the Ag Reserve is opened to non-conditional solar development, this land use change will displace farmers from their land. Farmers rely on access to affordable land to rent: that’s why Montgomery County residents have invested for decades in easements, Transfers of Development Rights, and other tools to keep this valuable land affordable for farmers. But land rents being offered by the solar industry are more than 20 times higher than what many land-leasing farmers currently pay. Some of Montgomery’s tenant farmers are already losing their long-term leases, due to solar speculators’ offers to landowners. ZTA 20-01 would open 2% (1800 acres) of the land in the Ag Reserve to solar, but industry representatives have said this is only the beginning of the land they wish to access, with their aim being solar conversion of anywhere between 13,000 and 18,000 acres in the Ag Reserve. Through the “Land Link” program of Montgomery Countryside Alliance, 40 new farmers - many of them immigrants, people of color, women, and veterans - are now seeking suitable land in the Ag Reserve, with 15 landowners offering farmland; the more landlords are able to raise rents and speculate on solar development, the fewer farmers will be able to afford and access land. Fifty-seven percent of land in the Ag Reserve is rented, not farmed by its owner – so renting farmers and new farmers searching for land to rent will lose out if forced to compete for land access with the deep-pocket solar industry.

Montgomery County should not base its zoning decisions solely on private corporations’ profit and convenience. Solar industry speculators and owners are seeking to profit from converting “cheap farmland” to energy production, but that inexpensive farmland is not a happenstance - it is the result of the forty-year effort to create and protect the Ag Reserve to benefit farming, because producers need affordable, stable land access. By developing on this publicly-subsidized farmland instead of on available, more appropriate sites, the solar firms can increase their profits – but increasing corporate profits is not why Montgomery County has invested in preserving the Agricultural Reserve. The industry objects to the Conditional Use process because they claim it will take too much time – but that is the same process that other industrial uses that may be in the public interest, like cell phone towers or transmission lines, follow in order to use land in the Ag Reserve. Giving the solar industry a special dispensation that other industries do not have is not necessary to build solar power in Montgomery County.

We ask you to support the compromise Conditional Use amendment to the ZTA. The undersigned organizations and individuals ask you to work with the Stakeholder community to:
1. Reject ZTA 20-01 as written.
2. Support the compromise Conditional Use proposal instead

Montgomery County already has the second-most solar installations in the state; we don't need to destroy the Agricultural Reserve to create solar power. The County can keep fighting climate change and working for environmental justice by expanding the Farm to Food Bank program, instituting a regenerative agriculture pilot program in the Agricultural Reserve, conducting a solar siting study and Smart Solar location policy, and prioritizing solar development on degraded land, brownfield, built surfaces, and industrial zones (like the 500-acre former coal plant site in Dickerson). Let’s build a harmonious food and climate justice strategy that honors complementary roles for agriculture and appropriately-scaled and sited solar facilities.

For Food and Climate Justice,

​Montgomery Countryside Alliance
Sugarloaf Citizens Association
Clean Water Action
Safe Skies Maryland
TALLE - Takoma Alliance for Local Living Economy
TAME Coalition (Transit Alternatives to MidCounty Highway Extended)
Divergence, LLC
Maryland Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
Preservation Maryland
Sugarland Ethnohistory Project
Landscape and Nature Discoveries
Biodiversity For A Livable Climate
Conservation Montgomery
Poolesville High School Chesapeake Bay Coalition
One Tree Club
Friends of Ten Mile Creek
Echotopia LLC
West Montgomery County Citizens Association
Environmental Justice Ministry-Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Valley Mill Camp
Richard Montgomery High School Fishing Club
Voices MD
L & M Farm
Montgomery County Farm Bureau
Envision Frederick County
​Montgomery County League of Women Voters
Kingsbury's Orchard
Cloverly Civic Association
Audubon Naturalist Society
Sunrise Rockville
Sunrise Einstein
Nick's Organic Farm
​Sunrise Movement Frederick
Safe Healthy Playing Fields Inc
Poolesville High School Chesapeake Bay Coalition
Sunrise Movement Baltimore
Cedar Lane Ecosystems Study Group
Citizens' Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights
West Montgomery County Citizens Association
Seneca Creek Watershed Partners
Future Harvest
Shepherd's Hey Farm
Around The Mountain Farm
Darnestown Civic Association
Bethesda Chevy Chase Izaak Walton League
Muslim Voices Coalition
Montgomery County Women's Democratic Club
Montgomery County Civic Federation
Progressive Democrats of America
One Acre Farm LLC
District 1 Neighbors
Tiewyan Farms
Green Plate Catering
Boyds Civic Association
Comus Sky Farm
Hidden Ridge Farm Flowers and Herbs
Peach Tree Pottery
​

Council President Hucker spoke this morning the the D-18 Breakfast about ZTA 20-01 (the provision that would allow 3 square miles of solar arrays in the Ag Reserve with scant protections for productive soils, water quality or forests.) He made a number of statements that are inaccurate. Getting solar sited responsibly in the Ag Reserve is possible but all members of the discussion need to get our facts right. 

Claim: Residents in the Ag Reserve are not allowed to have solar arrays. 
Fact: Residents in the Reserve can put solar on their roof the same way someone down county can. Currently, farms in the Reserve are allowed to have solar arrays that meet 120% of their needs and a number of farms do. All members of the ZTA work group agree that this accessory use on farms needs to be increased to 200%.  

​Claim: Just 2% of the Ag Reserve will be impacted
Fact: While this ZTA is only 1800 acres, there is no provision that would keep this cap in place. ZTA sponsor Councilmember Riemer has said anywhere between 13,000-18,000 acres is the amount of ground mounted solar being sought on open space and rural lands in the county. Moreover the industry has stated, as recently as the work sessions that the only place they can put it is on farmland in the county for reasons that we cannot fathom.  Councilmember Riemer in the PHED/T+E Committee meeting on the ZTA on 7/22/20 said "Far from talking about scaling back this proposal, we should be talking about where are we going to get the other 15,000 acres of ground-mounted solar or rooftop-mounted solar or other solar? Where are we going to get it from? What is the timeline to get that?”  (minute 11 here)

The provisions of the ZTA allow siting on productive class 2 and 3 soils and protect forests on a site by site basis - allowing clearcutting. With solar companies offering landowners 10-25 times what farmers pay per acre this provision will have impacts over the entire Reserve. Full fact sheet here. 

Claim: Council President Hucker has met with stakeholders.
Fact: In advance of the workgroup, a stakeholder meeting with Mr. Hucker was cut short as he sited the many challenges that the Council is up against with the pandemic and financial crisis. Now that the work group has finished, stakeholders have reached out again only to be rebuffed. While the work of the Council has surely increased dramatically in these unprecedented times - this ZTA is still speeding toward a vote. If there is enough time to consider sweeping land use changes to 1/3rd of the county, there must be enough time to meet with deeply concerned stakeholders impacted by these changes. 

Background: ZTA 20-01 is the proposal to allow commercial solar by right on three square miles of the Ag Reserve in opposition to the master plan without protections for forests, water quality or productive soils. Extensive fact sheet here.

After speeding through the committee process during the pandemic when concerned citizens were less able to weigh in, (particularly Ag Reserve residents, many of whom have broadband challenges) in November the Council sent the proposal to an 8 member working group made up of farmers, civic organizations (including MCA), local solar proponents and two non-resident solar industry representatives. 

The group was tasked with finding common ground on amendments to the ZTA that would better balance the concerns of farmers (who are unanimously against this provision) and ambitious (and necessary) carbon cutting goals. Last night, 12/29 was the 5th and last meeting. A huge THANK YOU to our partners on the work group and to all our supporters that joined us in the chat to make the case for balancing solar with agriculture, forests and water quality. 

The full video of the over 2 hour meeting is here.
The very robust chat transcript is here.
For a deep dive, the entire google drive the work group was working with is here. 

Synopsis: there was disagreement regarding the legal path to deploy commercial solar in the Agricultural Reserve. MCA and our Reserve colleagues are firm that the industrial use of solar arrays requires a conditional use designation- just as do other similar utility uses (radio, phone, utility towers, pipelines) in the Reserve. The Conditional Use designation properly regards this non-farming use as other requiring that the MC Board of Appeals take on the review/approval with public participation. And, in fact, it is how neighboring MC counties (that have no Ag Reserve) manage review/approval of commercial solar.

Stray Chat Follow Ups:
The Poolesville Array: 3+ acres of trees cleared to make a 6 acre array
New Farmers Can't Compete With Non-Ag Uses
How We Grow New Farms: Land Link Montgomery 

What's Next: Each "side" of the work group - pro and con - will write up their report and send it to the Council. The Transportation and Environment Committee and PHED committee are scheduled to meet on this ZTA on January 14th and the full council will meet later in January. We will continue to make the case that conditional use is the way to get solar done legally under the master plan.  Please stay tuned for opportunities to contact the Council as we work to get this right. 

As ZTA 20-01 (that as written would allow 3 square miles of commercial solar arrays in the Ag Reserve with scant protections for water quality, productive soils and forests) moves toward a vote at the County Council, Ag Reserve stakeholders have proposed amendments to the ZTA that would better balance natural resources and agriculture. 

The Reserve stakeholder report insists that allowing solar siting as a conditional use in the Ag Reserve is the only viable and legal path forward for this ZTA.   

For those not well versed in land use planning (most of us) - a brief explanation:

The ZTA currently proposed solar siting as a "limited use" meaning that it is a permitted use with some conditions, reviewed and approved by the MC Planning Commission. This ZTA as written has actually made few limits on where this use can go and what it can displace, namely farming:

- Forests removed for these projects will be the purview of the Planning Board on a site by site basis. This process did not protect trees when the Poolesville Array was allowed to clear 3 acres of forests for 6 acres of arrays.

-1800 is the first ask of ground mounted solar sought for the Reserve - ZTA sponsor CM Riemer has said anywhere between 13,000-18,000 acres is the amount of ground mounted solar being sought on open space and rural lands in the county. A limited use does not curtail far more than 1800 acres being approved later. With solar companies already offering 10-25 the going price per acre, why would this use not drive up costs for farmers throughout the Reserve? - a place designed so farmers don't have to compete with other uses for land.

Bottom Line: This "Limited Use" does not properly ensure that farming and forests are protected in the Reserve.   

​Conditional Use applications are required for a variety of non- ag uses in certain zones (i.e - the AR Zone encompassing the Ag Reserve), based on the use table found in the zoning code (In the AR zone these conditional uses include: cellular towers; broadcast towers; above-ground pipelines; and, notably, public utility structures.)  The Planning Department conducts intake review on Conditional Use cases to verify completeness.  Once applications are deemed acceptable, they are sent to the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings (OZAH), which ultimately approves or denies the Conditional Use. The process includes requirement of a forest conservation plan. Other neighboring jurisdictions - Baltimore, Hartford to name a few- have on-farm solar as a conditional use on farms  - this without having a formally protected Ag Reserve. 
​
Bottom Line: Conditional use is an existing path for non-ag uses to co-exist with farms in the Ag Reserve. It balances non-farm uses with farms - a stated goal of this ZTA. In conformance with the master plan this is only legal path forward. ​

ZTA 20-01 would allow 3 square miles of commercial solar in the Ag Reserve with scant protections for productive soils, water quality, forests or habitat. There are deep concerns about this provision - the Ag community is unanimous against it and a wide coalition of civic organizations and residents both up and down county have made their concerns known (much more here).  The council had decided in October to gather more stakeholder input, along with the "town hall" that took place virtually on 11/5, a working group is being convened to discuss possible changes to this provision. 

We are dedicated to getting solar right in Montgomery County and will be digging in to our role on this working group.

However, the make up of the group, seen below, could be improved by adding a representative of a Community Solar company that sells directly to consumers and moreover by adding representation of different types of farming (table crops, livestock, orchards, etc). 

As it says below, there are opportunities for the public to weigh in during this working group process between now and January. Please read on to see how you can continue to submit your concerns, and please stay tuned!

Farm Solar Stakeholder Workgroup
 
Task/Scope
Discuss any amendments to ZTA 20-01 and identify whether there are amendments that are agreeable to all participants; produce a memorandum or report by January 1, 2021 summarizing deliberations. 
 
Membership
Agriculture
Randy Stabler ( Ag Reserve Commodity Producer)
Doug Lechlider (Ag Reserve Commodity Producer)

Preservation
Caroline Taylor (MCA's Executive Director)
Lauren Greenberger (Sugarloaf Citizens Association) 

Environment
Doug Boucher (Solar Advocate)
Al Bartlett ( Montgomery County Sierra Club (in favor of the ZTA)) 

Industry
Leslie Elder (Coalition for Community Solar Access)
Frances Yuhas (Project Development at TurningPoint Energy)

 
Leadership
Workgroup members will elect two co-chairs to form agendas and lead the meetings. Council staff will assist the workgroup.
 
Meeting Schedule
All meetings will be held virtually (Zoom). Members of the public are welcome to attend and listen, but will be asked to RSVP by email to Carmen Kaarid (Carmen.Kaarid@montgomerycountymd.gov) of Council President Katz’s office. 
 
November 17, 6:30-8:30pm
December 2, 6:30-8:30pm
December 10, 6:30-8:30pm
December 16, 6:30-8:30pm (if necessary)
 
Documents for Deliberations
Stakeholder workgroup documents will be posted to a Google Drive folder accessible to the public. Visit the Stakeholder Workgroup Google Drive >>
 
Public Comments
Members of the public are encouraged to provide recommended amendments and any supporting analysis for the workgroup to review by emailing County Council staff member Jeffrey Zyontz at Jeffrey.Zyontz@montgomerycountymd.gov. Comments received by Mr. Zyontz will also be shared with the Joint Committee in the background memorandum for the meeting.
 
Staff Contacts
County Council staff: Jeffrey Zyontz, Jeffrey.Zyontz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Riemer’s office: Tommy Heyboer, tommy.heyboer@montgomerycountymd.gov
Council President Katz’s office: Laurie Edberg, Laurie.Edberg@montgomerycountymd.gov 
Council President Katz’s office (for scheduling issues): Carmen Kaarid, Carmen.Kaarid@montgomerycountymd.gov 

Frost kissed crops at Farm at Our House in Brookeville

We've remarked before on how farmers have stepped up in the pandemic to provide more and more local food to hungry neighbors as local becomes the new normal. This increased activity has not stopped despite the coming of winter. Farmers are using season extension structures, both low and high tunnels to keep snow off plants. As we round the calendar to a new year, the low temperatures only concentrate the sugars and improve the taste of winter veggies - broccoli, kale, collards and root veggies. 

MoCo Farms One Acre Farm and also Farm at Our House are offering winter shares of their CSA programs (Community Supported Agriculture). Many Farmers Markets continue all year round as well. 

MCA has been productively engaged with farmers, other civic orgs and solar industry representatives in a work group to amend ZTA 20-01. As currently written this proposal will allow 3 square miles of commercial solar arrays in the Agricultural Reserve with scant protections for productive soils, forests and water quality. (full fact sheet here)

A number of local environmental groups have been engaged to urge that solar siting in the county take protection of natural resources into account. Adding to the list, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The most recent copy of Bay Journal has an illuminating piece from long time land use expert Lee Epstein, the director of Lands programs at CBF.  It reads in part: 

This article is one of many documents in the google drive for the solar working group. Though only given 4 meetings to discuss possible amendments to the ZTA, the work group will continue to meet. In the absence of the County's infrastructure to host this virtual meeting and make it open to the public, MCA has stepped up to do so. Please stay tuned. 

​Noted water research scientist, Dr. Ahmed Kettab declared in April of this year that “Water for everyone is everyone’s business.” He and other world scientist were responding to dire climate change forecasts that predict that by 2030 water scarcity will affect 40% of the world’s populace. Currently 25% of global population is in severe water stress. By 2050 demand for water will increase by 40%.

Even though we know intuitively that the worlds water endlessly cycles and does not know boundaries of any sort - one could ask - what does all this  dire news mean to us? 

Closer to home, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, released its report: Demand and Resource Availability for the Year 2050. It is a sobering read that details the potential impact of climate change and increased water demand on the Washington Metropolitan Area water supply. It was conducted on behalf of the Fairfax County Water Authority, WSSC and the US Army Corps of Engineers, Water Aqueduct Division.
The ICPRB has known for some time that our region’s water supply will be faced with significant challenges in meeting demand during projected periods of drought. They are diligently working to address this. The system of existing reservoirs will be called to use more frequently and will not provide enough water in times of stress and so 4 new proposed reservoirs are in the works:
Travilah Quarry in Potomac and Luck Stone Quarry B in Loudon County and the Vulcan and Milston Quarries. 

The ICPRB reports warns that even with the addition of these new quarries which will add 13 billion gallons of water storage capacity, coupled with water restrictions and demand management we may not be able to meet our water needs during the predicted future periods of extreme drought. The report also warns that without the addition of the 7.8 million gallon Travilah Quarry the WMA may experience periodic failures by 2040. 

And yet, despite this dire forecast for our region, we continue to practice business as usual, no where more so than in the siting of development which has an impact on both the speed aquifers are recharged and the quality of the water in our streams. The Friends of Ten Mile Creek are leading the charge to enforce impervious caps in the fragile Ten Mile Creek watershed where the build out of Clarksburg is continuing without regard for the master plan.  The Thrive 2050 plan that will chart the County's land use for the coming generation also needs to be taking this water- strapped reality into account. For our part at MCA we, are reforesting stream buffers to clean water before it reached the reservoir through our Re-Leaf the Reserve program. 

Learn More:
-The case of the communicating wells - a Poolesville Story
- All about the federally designated sole source aquifer that much of the Reserve relies upon for well water. 
-Journal of Nature Communications - Impacts of Climate Change on Groundwater
-USGS - Impacts of Climate Variation on Groundwater
​-Journal of Hydrology - Groundwater Impacts and Adaptation

Landmark new reporting shows that we won't able to count on food from the South and West coast for much longer. Enter the Ag Reserve. 

A new exhaustive study from Pro Publica has yielded the next in a series of alarming maps about climate change. This time, interactive maps and charts show where the threats of climate change will be felt most acutely in the near term - as soon as 2040. 

Of note - the map that shows the shift in table crop production. Away from the South and California, areas we have relied on for out of season produce and vegetables, and toward our own backyard in the mid-Atlantic.  (Purple means decline in yields, green means increase - darker= higher decline or gain). 

If the flavor, transportation costs, carbon savings and economic benefits of local food were not enough, climate change is making food trucked in from elsewhere simply unavailable - and we need to be ready. ​

Montgomery County had the foresight to protect 1/3 of it's land mass for agriculture 40 years ago and the fortitude to maintain the primacy of farming in the zone since then. MCA has matched new and expanding farmers with over 500 acres of land in Montgomery County to grow the next generation of farmers through our Land Link program.  We need each and every new table crop operation we can get growing to add to the generations of expertise and production our legacy farmers offer if the Ag Reserve is going to fulfill its promise of bountiful local food production. 

Yet, at this time where the food growing potential (and water quality protection, more dire projections here)  of the Reserve is more important than ever, the singular purpose of the Agriculture Reserve is being questioned. ZTA 20-01 would allow 3 square miles of commercial solar arrays with no real protections for forests, productive soils or water quality. What's more - the economic impact won't even be studied as part of this proposal - even though landowners report offers for their land 10-20 times what farmers are paying and some farmers are reporting  the loss  of lease contracts as the result of this ZTA even being proposed.  (60% of Reserve farming is done on leased land). 

The Reserve has a role to play in meeting carbon mitigation goals, including reforestation efforts and scaling up regenerative agriculture practices. But as the threats of warming become more and more concrete, this area set aside for Agriculture is a strategic investment in just that - growing our food in a rapidly warming world. 

The Planning Board hearing for the proposed Pulte Development "Creekside at Cabin Branch" is now scheduled for December 3, 2020. This hearing will determine the development plans that Pulte has put forward. Your letters and support for the preservation of the Ten Mile Creek Watershed are truly needed if we have any chance of reducing this poorly conceived development.Our concerns are the following:

• According to the county Master Plan, impervious levels (the amount of pavement that allows runoff into streams) in this fragile headwaters area of the watershed can not go above 5% impervious surface without serious degradation of Ten Mile Creek and the reservoir. An investigation of the project shows impervious levels will reach between 7-12%.
• The 5% cap enshrined in the Master Plan is based on decades of water quality monitoring. Development projects in this fragile area must be curtailed to preserve our drinking water supply. Pulte's "Creekside" project must be reduced in scale by 50% and remove the two portions that plunge deeply into the watershed.
• Adjacent Cabin Branch Creek also feeds the reservoir and has impaired water quality as the result of a massive development. We have the opportunity to avoid this mistake in the County's most fragile watershed.