Three out of the five publications that have been produced since my start date of April 18 have had extensive articles about solar farms in Sunflower County.
Three weeks ago, I covered Duke Energy’s presentation at the BB King Museum about their “mid-early” phase development in rural areas southeast of town. The E-T’s reporter, Jyesha Johnson, wrote an article about Swift Current last week and their desire to continue the development of a solar farm that they purchased from another company just north of Indianola. And finally, I’ll probably be informing the public once more about this industry after taking a tour of the Sunflower Solar Station in Ruleville on Thursday.
The research clarifies the environmental benefits and long-term cost savings to solar consumers. But solar energy’s recent emergence in Sunflower County (how appropriate!) and its nuances deserve a deeper dive.
First, why Sunflower County? What has attracted three major solar producers in such a short amount of time? Second, where do the county, its representatives, and citizens stand on the issue? Let’s address the latter question first.
After talking with Jyesha and reading her article from the last Sunflower County Board of Supervisors meeting, divided is probably the term that best describes the political atmosphere.
Two members of the board (Gloria Dickerson and Riley Rice) seem very supportive of the industry coming into the area as an alternative and balance to local farming and industry that Dickerson, in particular feels does not provide livable employment for constituents in her ward. Diametrically opposed to bringing full-scale operations are Glenn Donald and Ben Gaston.
These two believe that the increasingly setting aside of farmland for solar farms would have a negative downstream impact and become a slippery slope on the economy because so many ancillary industries in the area depend on agriculture.
Some of the industries perceived to be impacted would be banking, automobile sales/parts businesses, and over-the-road transportation companies. Interestingly, with four members of the board of supervisors overtly verbalizing their support, or lack thereof, for more solar farms, that leaves supervisor Anthony Clark as the tiebreaker. As far as the first question is concerned, why wouldn’t a solar farm want to locate in Sunflower County? The landmass is vast. There are plenty of private landowners willing to strike a deal and there could be a long-term tax abatement hanging in the balance.
Citizens at large and supervisors as a group empowered to serve them must continue to research the pros and cons. Will solar farms hire local people for the handful of permanent jobs that will be necessary to run the facilities post-construction?
Will the companies invest in the community through philanthropy, nonprofit work, and participation in the betterment of civic life? Will the companies be aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly for the duration? Unfortunately, the supervisors and the citizens might have very little say so on the very public issue that will ultimately be settled by private landowners and their neighbors.
Landowners willing to lease their property to solar suitors will probably always be an attractant, but when companies like Swift and the others that will surely follow come seeking a tax abatement, the leadership and citizens should have plenty to say.
