To prohibit the provision of Federal financial benefit for the construction, expansion, or substantial rehabilitation of data centers on prime farmland and other certain farmland.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 27, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect agricultural land by removing federal financial incentives for data center development on prime farmland.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits any federal agency from providing federal financial benefits, such as grants, tax credits, or accelerated depreciation allowances, for the construction, expansion, or substantial rehabilitation of data centers. This prohibition applies specifically to data centers located on land classified as prime farmland or other certain farmland, as defined by existing federal law, for projects beginning after the bill's enactment date.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for preserving the nation's agricultural capacity and food security by preventing the irreversible loss of prime farmland to industrial development, especially given the rapid expansion of data centers. They contend that federal funds should not subsidize activities that undermine vital agricultural resources.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could hinder economic development and technological infrastructure growth, particularly in rural areas, by limiting site selection for data centers and potentially increasing development costs. They may also contend that local zoning and land-use policies are more appropriate mechanisms for farmland protection, rather than a broad federal prohibition on financial benefits.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core purpose quickly.
Section 1(a)
Prohibition on Federal Financial Benefit for Data Centers on Farmland
This section establishes a clear prohibition: no federal agency can provide any form of federal financial benefit (such as grants, loans, tax credits, or accelerated depreciation) for the construction, expansion, or major renovation of data centers if those data centers are located on land classified as prime farmland or other protected agricultural land under the Farmland Protection Policy Act. This prohibition applies to any project initiated after the bill's enactment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly addresses the critical issue of farmland loss by removing federal subsidies that might otherwise encourage the conversion of valuable agricultural land. They believe it aligns federal policy with conservation goals and promotes sustainable land use.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this provision could inadvertently steer data center development towards other types of undeveloped land, potentially impacting different ecosystems or increasing development costs. They may also argue it creates an unnecessary federal layer of regulation over local land use decisions.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the economic benefits and technological necessity of data center expansion against the long-term value of preserving agricultural land. It creates a tension between promoting infrastructure development and protecting natural resources, potentially shifting development pressures to other land categories.
The bill's core definitions for what constitutes a 'data center,' 'prime farmland and other certain farmland,' and 'Federal financial benefit' are not contained within the bill itself but are incorporated by reference to existing federal statutes or explicitly defined within the bill's scope.
Section 1(a) and 1(b)
Why it matters:Referencing existing definitions is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with established legal frameworks. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does require external research for a complete understanding of the bill's scope.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing existing definitions ensures consistency with established federal policy and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting definitions. This approach streamlines the legislative process and leverages existing legal infrastructure.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying on external definitions makes the bill less accessible to the public and requires legal expertise to fully grasp its implications, potentially obscuring the true scope of the prohibition for a casual reader.
Estimated impact: The scope of the bill's impact on data center development and farmland protection is entirely dependent on the specific definitions referenced, which are broad and well-established in existing law.