05/07/2026
Wisconsin’s small family farms are facing growing pressure as industrial-scale development continues expanding across productive agricultural land. In Columbia County alone, more than 5% of farmland has already been converted to industrial solar projects — and that does not include additional impacts from wind development, large transmission corridors, data centers, and continued rural development.
Specialty crop farms and agritourism operations are especially important to Wisconsin’s economy and identity. These farms support local food systems, tourism, pollinators, conservation efforts, and multi-generational rural businesses. Unlike commodity row crops, specialty crop farms often require years of investment, highly sensitive growing conditions, and direct public interaction through activities like U-pick operations, farm markets, and agritourism events.
One Wisconsin specialty crop farm completely surrounded by the High Noon Solar project raised concerns after Invenergy’s CPCN application to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission reportedly stated on page 72 that there were “no specialty crop farms” within the project area, despite the existence of the farm within and surrounded by the project footprint.
On July 30, 2025, the specialty crop farm received an email from Invenergy / Blattner Construction Manager Casey Joyce stating that Es**rt XP and Milestone herbicides would be sprayed during the first week of August to control w**ds on adjacent project property near active strawberry fields. According to the communication, a boom sprayer would be used with a 150-foot setback from the fence line.
The farmers became deeply concerned because Es**rt XP and Milestone are residual broadleaf herbicides that can kill strawberry plants and remain active in the soil for extended periods of time. Es**rt XP also carries a groundwater contamination warning, adding to the farmers’ concerns about long-term impacts to soil, water resources, pollinator habitat, and surrounding agricultural land. According to the farmers’ understanding and the expert concerns they received, damage from these products could potentially destroy established strawberry fields, impact future plantings, and leave the farm facing years of recovery and lost production. After consulting agricultural experts and researching the products, the farmers also worried about herbicide drift during hot August temperatures and noted that some states reportedly restrict or prohibit certain boom-sprayer applications of Es**rt XP due to drift concerns.
The farmers reportedly asked Invenergy to consider alternative w**d-control methods or different herbicides because they feared Es**rt XP and Milestone could kill their strawberry crop and contaminate productive specialty-crop soil. According to the farmers’ account, the company declined to change plans at that time. The farmers then contacted a UW–Madison professor, who provided letters outlining concerns regarding Es**rt XP and Milestone near specialty crop production.
The farm also contacted the Wisconsin DNR and Wisconsin DATCP. According to the farmers’ account, DATCP representatives explained they could investigate after spraying occurred, conduct drift testing, and send samples to a lab, but the farmers would likely need legal counsel to obtain results and pursue any potential claims. The farmers were concerned that if Es**rt XP or Milestone damaged the strawberries and surrounding soil, recovery could take years, including replanting fields, soil remediation, forcing root growth in replacement plants, delayed harvests, and severe financial losses that could threaten the survival of the farm itself.
The farmers also contacted the Wisconsin Public Service Commission seeking mediation assistance. According to the farmers, they provided the PSC with the email discussing the planned herbicide use, the UW letters, and reminders that the PSC’s Final Decision for the project required native pollinator plantings in areas where spraying was proposed. The farmers also argued that spraying residual herbicides capable of killing broadleaf plants conflicted with the stated pollinator habitat goals of the project. According to the farmers’ account, the PSC responded that it did not deal with “Hypothetical Situations” and did not enforce Final Decision requirements directly.
A formal complaint was filed with the PSC on August 1, 2025. When the farmers followed up on August 22, they reportedly received an email from PSC Chief Counsel Cara Coburn Faris stating:
“Due to the Commission’s vast activities, how our staff is structured, and the many matters that staff attend to each day, not each and every staff will be responding to each of your messages directly and in great detail. We simply don’t have the capacity for that. However, we have an effective process for review of complaints such as yours.”
According to the farmers, they did not receive a formal response until September 25, 2025, when the PSC reportedly stated that “High Noon is not planning on using the herbicide Es**rt XP.”
Before that response arrived, the farmers had reportedly spoken directly with a local applicator involved in the w**d control work. According to the farmers’ account, the applicator stated he had not been told Es**rt XP or Milestone would be used and instead believed 2,4-D was planned. The applicator reportedly declined to spray Es**rt XP or Milestone adjacent to the strawberry fields because of the potential risk to the crop.
On August 7, 2025, Casey Joyce reportedly informed the farmers by email that spraying was being put on hold and that if resumed, Stinger herbicide would be used instead with a 390-foot setback. According to the farmers, the email also stated: “Please refrain from contacting our subcontractors and suppliers, both now and for the duration of the project.”
According to the farmers’ account, had they not aggressively advocated for themselves, consulted experts, documented communications, and directly contacted the applicator involved in the spraying operation, they believe no agency or company involved would have stepped in soon enough to prevent potentially devastating damage to their strawberry fields. The farmers believe that without their own intervention, they could have faced years of lost income, destroyed crops, damaged soil, mounting debt obligations, and possibly the loss of the farm itself. They also expressed frustration that, in their view, the PSC, DNR, and DATCP offered little practical ability to prevent harm before spraying occurred. The farmers further questioned what PSC Chief Counsel described as “an effective process,” noting that the PSC’s eventual response stated that “High Noon is not planning on using the herbicide Es**rt XP” despite the farmers having previously provided the PSC with the July 30 email discussing planned use of Es**rt XP. The farmers believe this response failed to accurately address the concerns they raised and did not provide meaningful protection before potential harm could occur.
The situation raises broader questions about how Wisconsin balances industrial energy development with the protection of specialty crop farms, agritourism businesses, pollinator habitat, groundwater resources, and neighboring rural landowners.
Family farms are more than open land on a map. They are homes, businesses, local employers, conservation partners, and part of Wisconsin’s agricultural heritage. Once specialty crop soils, pollinator systems, and rural ecosystems are disrupted, recovery can take years (if recovery is possible at all).
This story is being shared to encourage respectful public discussion about farmland preservation, responsible project oversight, and the long-term future of Wisconsin agriculture.
Disclaimer: This post reflects publicly discussed information, personal experiences shared by those involved, and communications or documents referenced by the farmers. It is shared for informational and public discussion purposes only. It is not intended to make allegations of unlawful conduct or intentional wrongdoing by any individual, company, contractor, or government agency. Quotations are reproduced as described by the farmers from communications they received. Statements regarding project filings, agency responses, or communications are based on the farmers’ interpretation of publicly available documents and correspondence. Other parties may have different perspectives or additional information regarding these events.
