A few weeks ago I did a blog post on land my Havel ancestors "owned" in Bohemia. Of course, for most of the time, they really did not own the property, rather they had rights to the land like a long-term lease. That is because they were peasants under the control of a lord. A lord could exercise a high level of control over individuals, personal issues and economically. These controls lessened over time. In Bohemia, the last of the peasant reforms was enacted in 1848, which allowed the farmers to buy the land they had long farmed from the domain. I did not realize until a few weeks ago that there is a provision in the State of Wisconsin Constitution relating to preventing feudal tenures, such as my Havel, Duscheck and other ancestors were subject to in Bohemia.
 |
| 138 kv line in Fitchburg, WI Source: Google Maps street view |
The ancestral village of the Havel family was Ratiborova Lhota and it appears about 25 acres was farmed by my fourth great grandfather and perhaps back to my 8th great grandfather, which is as far back as I have it traced. The family farm in Ratiborova Lhota was "bought" by my 3rd great grandfather's brother in 1805, who sold the rights to Johann Mila in 1818. The rights were bought by Johann Havel's daughter Katherina in 1842 and she promptly sold the rights to someone else (Johann and Anna Kozak). In 1796 my 3rd great grandfather, Frantisek moved to Dolni Chrastany where he took over the contract of the Jiral land upon his marriage to Teresia Jiral. In Dolni Chrastany, per the circa 1830 parcel report, Frantisek and then his son, my 2nd great grandfather, Josef, managed the equivalent of about 40 acres of land in Dolni Chrastany. Either with or before my fourth great grandfather the Havel family became sedlack farmers, a higher level of peasant farmer. With this designation came requirements from the domain. Sedlack farmers had to provide the highest level of goods and services, including labor (often referred to as corvee or robota system) to the domain. They provided the highest level of service to the domain of any peasant class. This was part of the feudal system.
 |
| Land Register of Georg Hawle (7th g grandfather) Source: Trebon Archives, Land Register Ordinal 139, Lhenice |
What is interesting is that the Wisconsin Constitution, written in 1847 was adopted by territorial referendum in March 1848. Interestingly, 1848 was the same year of the land reform in Bohemia was implemented. The following is the provision in our state Constitution:
All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural land for a longer term than fifteen years in which rent or service of any kind shall be reserved, and all fines and like restraints upon alienation reserved in any grant of land, hereafter made, are declared to be void.
 |
| Land Register of Jakub Hawle Source: Trebon Archives Land Register Ordinal 57, Lhenice |
 |
| Transmission Lines (2007) in Fitchburg, WI Source: 2008 Fitchburg Comprehensive Plan |
The defendants also argue it would turn upside down a variety of long-term leases from cell towers, bill boards (which would be OK), turbine, and mineral extraction leases. Well, maybe all these other leases were wrong. Does this practice overturn the wording in the Wisconsin Constitution? What they are saying is even if it is unconstitutional, the long-term leases should be approved because others have done them. They also argue that the language in the constitution was to prevent tenants from oppressive landlords and not voluntary leasing.
Power companies know that solar can be used by many people and have thus had the legislature enact legislation limiting private solar production, so as to not produce too much that gets sent back to the electrical grid. This way they get to keep their hands in the pot of renewable energy and continue to have a stake in energy production. Solar is desirable, but the way they are doing it, in my mind, is has long-term affects for agriculture.
Agricultural zoning, particularly exclusive agricultural zoning was meant to preserve farmland. Here is a novel idea to those who think farmland is four housing, industry and solar generation, how about trying to preserve farmland for growing crops and animal husbandry. In the 1970's the state recognized how much farm land was being eaten up by suburbanization and exurbanization and they wished to protect the agricultural land in the state. They helped do this in two ways. One they established farmland preservation agreements and then created exclusive agricultural zoning (I will refer to it as A-X). Farm land under A-X zoning had mainly farm uses allowed, but also allowed utilities and some governmental facilities generally as conditional uses, meaning they had a public hearing and local approval with a determination if the uses met certain standards. Obviously, the power companies wanted the ability to place a power generating facility pretty much anywhere they desired, and after all the state has some control over that through the Public Service Commission. Although, the PSC will typically go to the lowest cost option on the idea it is “better” for rate payers. Farmers who had land in a farmland preservation program could get a tax credit, and if it was zoned A-X, even more of a tax credit. Other taxpayers were subsidizing qualified farmers, to a certain degree. Over time, as is the course, some farmer interests and other interests got this watered down. There used to be a fairly good penalty for a farmer who received a tax credit but then allowed development of their land, but that has pretty much gone away. The result is more land being eaten up once again by sprawl, with no real consequences. The farmer that most benefits are those on the urban fringe who are closer to development, like those in Waukesha County, as an example, where rural subdivisions are the name of the game.
 |
| 138 kv line and MGE Substation Marketplace Drive, Fitchburg, WI Source: Google Maps, street view |
The use of good agricultural land for a solar power facility is simply wrong-headed. Fifty years ago the value of agricultural land was realized by the state, but economic downturns have a way of changing the course of law. In Dane County, the village of Cambridge is against the plan for the solar farm. Not because they wish to preserve farmland, but they have their own interests in mind--land for future subdivisions.
 |
| Power to the Grid Source: Google images |
Yes, the world needs clean energy, but would power companies be better off doing it another way? Rather than large solar production facilities on acres and acres of productive farmland, look to smaller scale facilities. When I worked for Fitchburg a large industry was going to be putting in a massive 400,000 one story square foot plant, to add to two other similar sized buildings. The then mayor and I asked them to consider solar, they said no. A couple years later the same company was looking to lease or purchase nearby farmland for--you guessed it--solar because customers are looking for how the company from which they buy is green. If they had spent the few dollars up front to strengthen the metal roof of the building, and it does not take much at construction time, they could have put solar panels on the roof. Think of the marketing to show solar panels on the roof of their production facilities. I suggested they find out if their buildings roof could hold solar panels, and if not what it would take to make them structurally capable but was, of course, rebuffed. Think also of all the parking lots they have to accommodate hundreds of cars, where solar could be constructed on slightly taller structures above the parked vehicles. Think of the benefit, no snow on your car parked under a solar panel. Of course, the land that corporation is looking at is now a solar power production facility for a power company and its developer. How about placing solar panels along our ribbon of highways?
 |
| Solar generating facility in Fitchburg, WI Source: Google Maps |
There are a variety of costs to bring energy from afar, including economic and environmental. Not to mention the loss incurred by those who are required to provide an easement to their property for a transmission line. There is also the loss of energy by transmission, the Joule effect. I once had a farmer in Fitchburg, whose land has a large 138 kv transmission line run across it, that he could feel an effect farming near the line (stray voltage), and one day took a fluorescent tube and saw that it would light up. I think that shows power loss. Anyway, placing solar panels on factory roof tops and over large parking areas places the generation of power closer to the load, hence less transmission loss, and a more efficient system.
 |
| Look at the industrial roof tops and 30 acre storm pond that could have been used for solar panels Source: Google Maps |
MGE likes the power the Fitchburg company uses and could have suggested that they, that is MGE, would pay to beef up the structure for the solar panels, but no one but the then Mayor and I would think ahead. Of course, because the company did not like it and it was suggested by me and the then mayor, the city Economic Development Dept did not like it. Creative thinking is required, but unfortunately, people look to the most convenient solution, even if it eats up farm land. In Japan they put solar panels over storm water ponds (I suggested that, too since they have many large storm ponds). It does not occur because this nation has a belief that our land resource is inexhaustible. Fitchburg has acres of a solar farm on some of the best farmland in the nation--an out wash glacial plain with deep rich soil, about as flat as flat can be.
The main reason I went in to city planning was to try and control sprawl, and to a large degree I think I was pretty successful, finding the proper balance, even if I pissed off Economic Development, and rural land owners who wished to develop. But, that is another story. What I did was think creatively. I tried to apply it to other areas, like the solar panel issue on a manufacturing roof, or over a 30 acre detention pond, but you always knew the council would do what the manufacturer wanted. Heck, the city even gave them significant Tax Increment District dollars. A subsidy for corporations and others. Why not apply a little more to accommodate solar panels on their roof? You guessed it, Economic Development and the owner did not like the idea.
 |
| Solar Array Source: Google images |
In the meantime energy companies, have this love-hate relationship with solar. They love it when they make the money off of it, hate it when private landowners use solar, and could make money. Then there is American Transmission Company, owned by power companies, which makes, if I recall correctly from when I testified against high voltage transmission lines for the city, a 7% or better annual return on investment. I think most of us would take such a return on investment. With this, they continue to use valuable farmland. At some point, perhaps, the nation will once again realize, like was done fifty years past, the error of our ways. Agricultural land, particularly the high quality land in Dane County, is a national resource. Unfortunately, most people, including local governments, do not see it that way. Land is being used as a commodity and government too many times assists in that use. Of course, the courts will rule with the power companies, there is too much money at stake. When I think of this issue, perhaps we are in a new feudal fiefdom, with power companies being the lord of the domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment