November 9, 2026
Idaho’s Farmland and Public Lands Are not Industrial Wastelands
Before sacrificing productive farmland or public lands, developers should be required to demonstrate that they have seriously considered suitable industrial sites
By: Jeff Pierson
Idaho’s farmland, public lands, and residential areas are not industrial wastelands!
There are better places to put massive data centers and renewable energy projects (hyperscale infrastructure) than productive farmland, locations within a few miles of residential neighborhoods, public lands, or over regional aquifers.
Look for alternatives
Before sacrificing productive farmland or public lands, developers should be required to demonstrate that they have seriously considered suitable industrial sites, such as brownfields, military bases, or abandoned industrial zones.
Not every alternative will work, but protecting valuable land should be a priority, not an afterthought. Developers should also be required to clarify the purpose of the project and whom it serves. There are important uses for AI and data centers, but there are also a lot of uses that do more harm than good.
The harm is know and can be irreversible
Once thousands of acres are covered with concrete, roads, power infrastructure, server buildings, steel, solar panels, or wind turbines, restoring that land is neither easy nor inexpensive.
Experts have said that it could take 30 to 70 years or more for public lands to recover AFTER a project is properly removed. Sagebrush, plants, animals, and soil require decades to fully recover, and some may never return.
Farmland occupied by industrial-scale solar installations, wind turbines, or data centers may not return to its original agricultural productivity after those facilities are removed.
Construction and demolition can damage soil structure, increase compaction, disrupt drainage, and alter or destroy productive topsoil. Scientific research documents persistent agricultural impairment following wind farm construction, while USDA and university agricultural guidance identify significant restoration challenges associated with solar facilities.
Complete recovery is possible in some circumstances, but it is not guaranteed, and available research does not establish how frequently heavily disturbed sites recover their original productivity.
The science behind recovery
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service identifies soil compaction, erosion, water ponding, contamination, and loss of organic matter as concerns associated with utility-scale solar projects.
The August 2024 environmental impact report for the Gilroy Data Center in California provides a particularly relevant example.
- The project proposed two data center buildings on approximately 56 acres previously used for agriculture, with approximately 25 acres becoming impervious surface.
- The environmental assessment characterizes that land-use conversion as irreversible.
A Purdue University study examined soil and crop damage at two Indiana wind farms.
- Researchers found that construction affected an average of 1.8 hectares (approximately 4.4 acres) per turbine during the first year. The affected area subsequently decreased by approximately 15% to 30% annually.
- However, some poorly drained and fine-textured soils had not recovered to their preconstruction condition after three years. This demonstrates persistent agricultural impairment, but it does not establish permanent damage or examine recovery after turbine decommissioning.
North Carolina State University’s Cooperative Extension specifically addresses whether farmland can return to agricultural production after a solar installation is removed.
- It identifies soil fertility, compaction, hardpan formation, potential contamination, and reclamation costs as factors that can interfere with restoring agricultural productivity.
- The publication also acknowledges that insufficient post-decommissioning evidence exists to predict outcomes reliably.
* The USDA’s 2025 conservation guidance further recognizes that removing solar infrastructure can itself produce substantial soil compaction, erosion, and vegetation damage (Read More)
There is limited farmland available in southern Idaho.
Southern Idaho soils are considered some of the best in the nation.
Dedicating hundreds or thousands of acres of farmland to industrial and hyperscale projects is simply irresponsible, shortsighted, and so grossly outside existing zoning laws that this practice should be banned under any circumstances. It creates environmental damage, and the impact is so large that it can affect the lives of an entire rural community.
Accountability
Local governments need to work with their citizens to determine what is acceptable and establish clear zoning restrictions, including the consideration of complete bans on farm land.
Citizens have good cause to be concerned about inappropriate influence
The danger of developer influence over local government is well documented.
Federal corruption prosecutions have exposed cases in which developers purchased favorable zoning and permitting decisions, while academic research demonstrates that developer campaign contributions can influence municipal land-use outcomes.
These findings reinforce the importance of transparent proceedings, independent technical review, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and consistent zoning standards established before individual development proposals are considered.
Examples of Corruption in Hyperscale Development
Saline Township, Michigan: Developer lawsuits and financial pressure (2025–2026)
- Local officials initially rejected rezoning approximately 575 acres of farmland for a proposed $43 billion data center development involving Oracle and OpenAI. The developer sued, and the township ultimately settled.
- An October 2026 investigation described how developers have used litigation, payouts, and existing zoning provisions to overcome resistance in small communities.
- This is evidence of substantial financial and legal pressure on local government, not proof of bribery
Carroll County, Kentucky: Ethics complaints against officials (2026)
- Residents challenged how local officials handled approvals for proposed hyperscale data centers.
- Kentucky Public Radio reported allegations involving financial conflicts of interest, officials voting on matters in which they allegedly had a financial stake, and possible open-meetings violations.
- These are complaints and allegations, not established findings of wrongdoing
Box Elder County, Utah: State agency advocating for a private developer (2026)
- Public records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune showed that Utah’s Military Installation Development Authority advocated on behalf of a data center and energy project associated with Kevin O’Leary.
- County officials sought $16.2 million upfront to cover anticipated public-service costs. The state authority pushed back on behalf of the developer, seeking different payment terms.
- This is especially relevant because it documents a public authority advocating for a private developer during negotiations with local government. It does not establish criminal misconduct
Fort Worth, Texas: Potential conflicts involving data center lobbying (2026)
- An investigation examined Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker’s family connection to a lobbying firm representing a data center coalition.
- Three municipal ethics experts reportedly concluded that she was not legally required to recuse herself but recommended abstention to protect public confidence and avoid the appearance of a conflict.
- This provides a concrete example of ethical concerns involving industry lobbying and local elected officials.
Data center developers exchanging financial benefits for government concessions (2026)
- A September 2026 Federation of American Scientists report examined ten data center community-benefit agreements obtained through public-records requests.
- One Frederick County, Maryland, agreement provided for more than $110 million in developer contributions in exchange for the county freezing zoning laws during construction.
- Other agreements included substantial payments to local governments, emergency services, and public facilities, sometimes conditional on tax abatements.
- These are documented contractual arrangements, not evidence that the payments were illegal. They show how large financial commitments can become directly connected to regulatory decisions.
FirstEnergy, Ohio: Proven bribery and regulatory corruption
- The FirstEnergy scandal is a particularly well-documented example of energy-industry corruption.
- FirstEnergy admitted to participating in a bribery scheme involving public officials, including payments connected to former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former Public Utilities Commission chairman Samuel Randazzo.
- The company agreed to a $230 million criminal penalty. Householder was convicted and sentenced to federal prison.
- The scheme helped advance legislation providing approximately $1 billion in subsidies for nuclear power plants. Former company executives were also charged, but their pending charges must be distinguished from the company’s admissions and Householder’s conviction.
- This involved state rather than county government, but directly demonstrates an energy company corrupting public decision-making for financial gain
Our farmland feeds people. Our public lands belong to all of us. Neither should be treated as disposable.
I personally advocate Ban Hyperscale Data and Energy Projects on Farmland and Near Residences. Protect Public Lands.
References and Further Reading
1. Arivmed, O., Lauenroth, W. K., Burke, I. C., & Mobley, M. L. (2015). Sagebrush steppe recovery on 30–90-year-old abandoned oil and gas wells. Ecosphere, 6(7).
https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00175.1
2. Belnap, J., & Gillette, D. A. (1998). Vulnerability of desert biological soil crusts to wind erosion: The influences of crust development, soil texture, and disturbance. Journal of Arid Environments, 39(2), 133–142.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0388
3. Belnap, J., Kaltenecker, J. H., Rosentreter, R., Williams, J., Leonard, S., & Eldridge, D. (2001). Biological soil crusts: Ecology and management (Technical Reference 1730-2). Bureau of Land Management.
https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/system/files/legacy/uploads/2939/CrustManual.pdf
4. Coates, P. S., O’Neil, S. T., Munoz, D. A., Dwight, I., & Tull, J. C. (2021). Sage-grouse population dynamics are adversely impacted by overabundant feral horses. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 85(6), 1132–1149.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22089
5. Cross, T. B., Tack, J. D., Naugle, D. E., Schwartz, M. K., Doherty, K. E., Oyler-McCance, S. J., Pritchert, R. D., & Fedy, B. C. (2023). The ties that bind the sagebrush biome: Integrating genetic connectivity into range-wide conservation of greater sage-grouse. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), Article 220437.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220437
6. Jahner, J. P., Gibson, D., Weitzman, C. L., Blomberg, E. J., Sedinger, J. S., & Parchman, T. L. (2016). Fine-scale genetic structure among greater sage-grouse leks in central Nevada. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 16, Article 127.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0702-4
7. Lan, S., Elliott, D. R., Chamizo, S., Felde, V. J. M. N. L., & Thomas, A. D. (2024). Editorial: Biological soil crusts: Spatio-temporal development and ecological functions of soil surface microbial communities across different scales. Frontiers in Microbiology, 15, Article 1447058.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1447058
8. Maxwell, L. M., Rutherford, T. K., Kleist, N. J., Teige, E. C., Lehrter, R. J., Gilbert, M. A., Wood, D. J. A., Johnston, A. N., Tull, J. C., Haby, T. S., & Carter, S. K. (2024). Effects of noise from oil and gas development on raptors and songbirds: A science synthesis to inform National Environmental Policy Act analyses (Scientific Investigations Report 2024-5087). U.S. Geological Survey.
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245087
9. Ngo-Cong, D., Antille, D. L., van Genuchten, M. Th., Nguyen, H. Q., Tekeste, M. Z., Baillie, C. P., & Godwin, R. J. (2021). A modeling framework to quantify the effects of compaction on soil water retention and infiltration. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 85, 1931–1945.
https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20328
10. Obour, P. B., & Ugarte, C. M. (2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of traffic-induced compaction on soil physical properties and grain yield. Soil and Tillage Research, 211, Article 105019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105019
11. Pitt, R., Chen, S.-E., Clark, S. E., Swenson, J., & Ong, C. K. (2008). Compaction’s impacts on urban storm-water infiltration. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 134(5), 652–658.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:5(652)
12. Prose, D. V., & Wilshire, H. G. (2000). The lasting effects of tank maneuvers on desert soils and intershrub flora (Open-File Report 00-512). U.S. Geological Survey.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0512/
13. Rutherford, T. K., Maxwell, L. M., Kleist, N. J., Teige, E. C., Lehrter, R. J., Gilbert, M. A., Wood, D. J. A., Johnston, A. N., Mengelt, C., Tull, J. C., Haby, T. S., & Carter, S. K. (2023). Effects of noise from oil and gas development on ungulates and small mammals: A science synthesis to inform National Environmental Policy Act analyses (Scientific Investigations Report 2023-5114). U.S. Geological Survey.
https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235114
14. Sage-grouse National Technical Team. (2011). A report on national greater sage-grouse conservation measures. Bureau of Land Management.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-A13-PURL-gpo90829
15. Sawyer, H., Middleton, A. D., Hayes, M. M., Kauffman, M. J., & Monteith, K. L. (2016). The extra mile: Ungulate migration distance alters the use of seasonal range and exposure to anthropogenic risk. Ecosphere, 7(10), Article e01534.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1534
16. Teige, E. C., Maxwell, L. M., Jordan, S. E., Rutherford, T. K., Dietrich, E. I., Samuel, E. M., Stoneburner, A. L., Kleist, N. J., Meineke, J. K., Selby, L. B., Foster, A. C., & Carter, S. K. (2023). Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022 (Open-File Report 2023-1082). U.S. Geological Survey.
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231082
17. U.S. Geological Survey. (2023). Annotated bibliography of scientific research relevant to oil and gas reclamation best management practices in the western United States, published from 1969 through 2020 (Open-File Report 2023-1068).
https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20231068/full
18. Maguire, K., Tanner, S., & Winikoff, J. B. (2024, September 12). Agricultural land near solar and wind projects usually remained in agriculture after development. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/agricultural-land-near-solar-and-wind-projects-usually-remained-in-agriculture-after-development
19. Maguire, K., Tanner, S., Winikoff, J. B., & Williams, R. (2024). Utility-scale solar and wind development in rural areas: Land cover change (2009–20) (Economic Research Report No. 330). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8374829.ers
20. Carroll, M. (2021, October 12). Can solar energy production be converted to farmland? North Carolina Cooperative Extension.
https://craven.ces.ncsu.edu/news/can-solar-energy-production-be-converted-to-farmland/
21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2024). Conservation considerations for solar farms.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/Conservation_Considerations_Solar_Farms.pdf
22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2025). Conservation guidance for utility-scale solar projects.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/Conservation-Guidance-for-Utility-Scale-Solar-Projects_2025415.pdf
23. U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Wind energy end-of-service guide.
https://www.energy.gov/cmei/systems/windexchange/wind-energy-end-service-guide
24. Gaudette, J., & de Benedictis-Kessner, J. (2025, September 23). Funding the growth machine: The effects of municipal campaign contributions on housing policy outcomes. Harvard Kennedy School.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/funding-growth-machine-effects-municipal-campaign-contributions-housing-policy
25. Lo, L., & Freemark, Y. (2022, November 15). Influencers, bias, and equity in rezoning cases: An evaluation of developer-initiated zoning changes in Louisville, Kentucky. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/influencers-bias-and-equity-rezoning-cases
26. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. (2024, January 26). Former Los Angeles politician José Huizar sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for racketeering conspiracy and tax evasion.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-los-angeles-politician-jose-huizar-sentenced-13-years-federal-prison
27. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. (2024). Former Los Angeles deputy mayor sentenced to 12 years in prison for racketeering conspiracy that corrupted city real estate projects.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-los-angeles-deputy-mayor-sentenced-12-years-prison-racketeering-conspiracy
28. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. (2023, July 21). Real estate developer sentenced to 6 years in federal prison for paying $500,000 cash bribe to corrupt L.A. politician and official.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/real-estate-developer-sentenced-6-years-federal-prison-paying-500000-cash-bribe
29. Federation of American Scientists. (2026). A guide to better data center policy for local governments.
https://fas.org/publication/before-breaking-ground/
30. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (n.d.). Full environmental assessment form, Part 2: Question 8, impact on agricultural resources.
https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr/eaf-workbooks/part-2-feaf/question-8
Author’s Note
I am not against data centers. I use AI and data centers daily, it is the field I work in and around. I am against sacrificing valuable land, public resources, and the right of citizens to control their local government.
© Copyright 2026, Jeff A Pierson JeffAPierson.com. Republished by permission.
Jeff A. Pierson is the owner of Confidential Solutions LLC and a policy researcher. He writes on Idaho energy, land use, and technology policy at jeffapierson.substack.com.
