To the editor:

The Journal-World published an article on Jan. 5 about the possibility of requiring future solar projects to test for zinc contamination of groundwater. That article noted that planner Mary Miller’s research found no reason to test for zinc and that experts at the Kansas Geological Survey determined that zinc “would not pose a risk to water resources.” The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requirement to the County Commission and on Jan. 22 the commission approved it for future solar developments in Douglas County. Commissioner Karen Willey, accurately citing that there is no evidence of zinc contamination associated with solar developments, was the only dissenting vote.

The commission approved a requirement for zinc testing contrary to expert opinion and with no scientific evidence presented by the Planning Commission, or anyone else, that solar farms pose a risk of zinc contamination of water resources. I can find no such evidence in the scientific literature. I believe this testing requirement was initiated by opponents of solar developments as a hurdle and additional expense for future solar developments.

Now that testing of water near solar developments is required, we have an opportunity to modify the testing requirements to include monitoring of atrazine, glyphosate and other commonly used agricultural chemicals. There is substantial scientific evidence that these chemicals do pose a risk of water contamination. Annual testing could document the progressive decline of chemical contamination after farm land is converted to solar production. Converting farm land that has been contaminated with a variety of chemicals to a solar facility with perennial ground cover will improve both soil health and water quality.

Wayne A. White,

Lawrence