Concerns Over Agricultural Land Use in the U.S.

Last September, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pointed out a significant issue: the United States exports a substantial amount of its food, including beef and citrus fruits. She emphasized, “If we can’t feed ourselves, it’s a national security issue.” So, it begs the question—why do many government land-use policies favor projects that consume valuable agricultural land? We’re talking about massive data centers and large solar farms which tend to contribute to sprawling infrastructure.

Even if Washington aimed to raise land prices and complicate farming, it’s unclear how they could improve upon their current approach. This is not just an isolated issue; one-party states across the board do this, with red states often in the lead.

Data Center: The “Cloud” That Consumes Water

Texas is grappling with an ongoing drought. Yet, Amarillo has approved the construction of an 18 million-square-foot data center on land previously used for cattle farming. Not only does land grabbing play a role, but these centers also use an enormous amount of water—like clouds that don’t bring rain.

The Amarillo facility alone could consume around 912 million gallons annually. Some large data centers are known to use up to 5 million gallons a day—roughly the equivalent water usage of a town with a population of about 10,000 to 50,000. This high demand is pushing out ranchers and farmers who struggle with tight profit margins and shrinking water supplies.

If food security is national security, then agricultural land is strategic territory. Let's start acting like that.

Data centers in Texas are projected to draw an astonishing 49 billion gallons of water by 2025, with numbers possibly rising to 399 billion gallons by 2030. That’s enough to lower Lake Mead’s water level by over 16 feet each year. Meanwhile, ranchers are seeing higher costs and limits on their water supply, forcing them into deeper withdrawals from already depleted aquifers. The water shortage can lead to smaller flocks, reduced yield, and, quite frankly, more pressure to sell.

You see how this can create an unending cycle that severely limits water access. Farming becomes less feasible, while technology companies, flush with cash and tax incentives, seem to thrive. Agricultural land is at risk of disappearing.

Honestly, what sense does it make to swap the essential beef and food for the profits from chatbots and advanced AI systems?

Maybe Elon Musk was on to something with his idea of placing data centers in space. Texas surely doesn’t have to stick them on farms.

In many red states, these data projects are seen as untouchable “economic developments,” even when they negatively impact local quality of life. A clear example is emerging from Ohio, where the state EPA’s draft permit suggests that compromising water quality is acceptable for “significant social and economic development.”

That one statement sums it up. Regulators might sacrifice water quality to cater to corporate interests, all while families and local landlords are expected to adapt.

Solar Power Farms Displacing Agricultural Land

President Trump has criticized solar power projects for their inefficiencies and unattractiveness. He’s got a point about the aesthetics. However, others are seizing planning rights amid increasing interest in solar. Together, solar power objectives and hyperscale AI facilities are leading to the displacement of land once used for food production.

A utility-scale solar farm generally requires about 5 to 10 acres per megawatt. To power a 1-gigawatt hyperscale facility, we could be looking at 5,000 to 10,000 acres. Proponents often discuss percentages, claiming solar uses only a fraction of total farmland. But it overlooks the fact that developers don’t choose less fertile areas; they target prime, well-drained locations.

Consider the financial incentives: Solar leases in places like Indiana and Illinois offer between $900 and $1,500 per acre each year, significantly more than your average corn or soybean return. Landowners are tempted, and young farmers find themselves priced out. With each passing year, rural communities lose not only productive land but also the economies that rely on it.

Reports indicate that in Indiana, solar projects have taken over up to 12% of the most fertile farmland—hardly “marginal” land. That level of soil is exactly what America needs for continued agricultural productivity.

And it gets worse—tax cuts for solar projects, data centers, and battery storage push land prices and rental costs higher. In Pulaski County, Indiana, farmland rental rates have surged by 26% since 2020, outpacing state and national averages. Young families who dream of farming can hardly compete against these subsidized mega-projects.

As conservative lawmakers back initiatives like carbon capture pipelines, farmland continues to become less usable. From 2010 to 2022, Indiana lost around 345,000 acres of farmland, much of that to residential selling. The combined impact of data centers and solar installations is only speeding up this transformation.

So what exactly are these conservatives protecting?

Import levels are rising steadily, with predictions indicating that in 2023, 59% of fresh fruit and 35% of fresh vegetables will be imported—up significantly from 50% and 20% in 2007. The U.S. has ample land to sustain itself, yet policymakers still make changes that push production overseas. Over half of all imported fruits and vegetables now come from Mexico alone, totaling more than $20 billion.

Ultimately, this country possesses incredibly fertile land. It has the sun and rain needed for growth. Yet, at times, it seems our leaders view that land as just a canvas for industrial growth that feeds no one.

If food security truly equates to national security, then it’s high time we begin treating agricultural land as the strategic asset it is.