BY JEFF CHUDZINSKI

North Country This Week

CANTON — Solar projects are once again in the crosshairs of local officials, this time with the county legislature as representatives aim to impose restrictions on land that can be used for future solar arrays.

Legislator Dan Fay, who serves on the Planning Board Committee for the legislature, said that a joint session with the Agriculture and Markets board on Feb. 9 led to “great discussion” about the ongoing conflict caused by new solar projects coming into the county.

Jason Pfotenhauer, director of planning for St. Lawrence County, was widely praised for his presentation during the meeting.

“I think they did an excellent job with the presentation. It was a very productive meeting,” Fay said.

According to Fay, many involved with both boards agreed that the use of tillable land utilized for farming practices should not be used for such projects.

“We even passed a resolution that stated solar panels shouldn’t be on tillable land,” he said.

Though Fay did acknowledge there was some pushback as some questioned what the legislature had done to assist with the situation, the talks remained positive.

One of the primary concerns mentioned was the idea that individuals did not want to upset neighbors by trying to tell them what to do, especially in the case of retired farmers.

“One point that I really got out of the meeting is that a lot of our marked lands, that are flood zones, basically may have not been flooded for 30 or even 40 years. We should look towards them instead of our tillable land,” Fay said.

Grassroots organizations have also begun to pop up, with some launching petitions in recent weeks in opposition to a number of solar projects in the greater Canton area.

One such group is being fronted by Nature’s Storehouse owner Rainbow Crabtree, who launched an online petition recently on behalf of Canton Citizens for Responsible Solar to halt a 240-megawatt solar center on the Rich Road in the Town of Canton.

Crabtree is a member of that community watchdog group. As of Feb. 14, the petition had 354 signatures.

“We need to see what we can do to stop the loss of our prime farmland,” Fay said.

“We know why they’re going on farmland, it’s because they just have to put up a poll and put their panel on it,” Fay continued.

During the 1950’s and 60’s, following the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, over 5,000 high paying manufacturing jobs were placed in the county. Those power lines now serve as a primary conduit for the power being generated by these solar projects, Fay said.

“We’re now down to about 800 of these jobs,” Fay said.

The loss of so many jobs, coupled with the loss of farmland, may prove to have long term consequences for the county, Fay argued.

Fay suggested the legislature pass a resolution to ensure such projects are not placed on prime farmland, however some wonder if that may prove difficult.

Legislator David Forsythe offered a different perspective to Fay’s, acknowledging the issue at hand needs to be addressed but said it’s a “Catch-22” in regards to the solar project placements.

“Prime farmland is where the power lines are. It has to be three phase, otherwise it’s useless to these projects. It’s a Catch-22, there’s no way to win it. That’s how I feel,” he said.

Legislator Jim Reagen questioned whether the county could impose a tax on future projects, as a way to monetize them for the county.

“Tax is an interesting word. I don’t like the word tax but I know a synonym that may function better, that would be fee. I would have to research that,” County Attorney Stephen Button said.

Though Button said there is “very little area in which to maneuver,” he did say the county does have certain avenues that can be explored regarding a fee structure.

“Would that be wrapped in an HCA or, let me expand that a little more. Could we, using an HCA, come to some kind of fee arrangement in that process, in that Host Community Agreement,” Legislator Joseph Lightfoot asked.

Button said one of the primary concerns is that such fees would have to be placed on every such project in the county. The question then revolves around the prospect of placing some sort of fee or tax on the delivery of the energy generated by the array to the grid.

“We could not pick and choose between projects,” Button continued.

One possibility the county could pursue is a separate fee structure from that of the state or an HCA, officials say.

“It would be imposed on all projects engaged in that activity but as I said, I would have to research that to verify,” Button said.

“I guess what I am looking for is a vehicle in which to do it,” Lightfoot said.

County officials will likely continue to look for solutions when the full board meets next month, officials said.